I have decided to become the follower of all the atheists

[Atheist-Lite]

I realise atheism is a philisophical standpoint beyond my primitive and instinctual understanding. All I can do is follow in the footsteps of atheists. I may refer to myself as a nihilist but that means nothing now. If there is a future for me it is only to found in trying to emulate the atheists and especially their newly discovered leader. I shall do my best. You lead and I follow but I'm not currently gay so use that as metaphor please, unless your a pretty one?

[Millefleur]

Welcome to the dark side

[Santa_Claus]

I think Kevin is an approriate name for...........a Knight of the Grand Order of Atheism

(due to technological limitations you will have to anoint yourself with a spoon )

[Coito ergo sum]

I realise atheism is a philisophical standpoint beyond my primitive and instinctual understanding. All I can do is follow in the footsteps of atheists. I may refer to myself as a nihilist but that means nothing now. If there is a future for me it is only to found in trying to emulate the atheists and especially their newly discovered leader. I shall do my best. You lead and I follow but I'm not currently gay so use that as metaphor please, unless your a pretty one?

Atheism is not a "philosophical standpoint." Atheism is the belief that there are not gods, or the lack of belief in any gods, or at least the opinion that insufficient evidence has been presented from which to conclude that any god or gods exist. That's it. There is no "philosophy of atheism." Atheism and nihilism are two different things. A nihilist can be an atheist, but not all atheists are nihilists.

Atheism does not even require one to be non-religious. Theravada Buddhism, for example, is followed by something like 1.5 billion people, and is atheistic. They are not nihilists and they are not atheists.

To demonstrate that atheism is not a philosophy, please juxtapose Theravada Buddhism with Objectivism (Ayn Rand). Both are atheistic, and yet they are radically different philosophies.

Objectivism rejects religion, including atheistic Buddhism:

Rand said in an interview once, when asked if religion ever did anything good:

Qua religion, no—in the sense of blind belief, belief unsupported by, or contrary to, the facts of reality and the conclusions of reason. Faith, as such, is extremely detrimental to human life: it is the negation of reason. But you must remember that religion is an early form of philosophy, that the first attempts to explain the universe, to give a coherent frame of reference to man’s life and a code of moral values, were made by religion, before men graduated or developed enough to have philosophy.

In Atlas Shrugged, Rand wrote:

They claim that they perceive a mode of being superior to your existence on this earth. The mystics of spirit call it “another dimension,” which consists of denying dimensions. The mystics of muscle call it “the future,” which consists of denying the present. To exist is to possess identity. What identity are they able to give to their superior realm? They keep telling you what it is not, but never tell you what it is. All their identifications consist of negating: God is that which no human mind can know, they say—and proceed to demand that you consider it knowledge—God is non-man, heaven is non-earth, soul is non-body, virtue is non-profit, A is non-A, perception is non-sensory, knowledge is non-reason. Their definitions are not acts of defining, but of wiping out.

So - if Buddhism can be atheistic - and Objectivism can be atheistic - then what is the philosophy of atheism of which you speak?

[Atheist-Lite]

That's a wordy explanation of a nonphilisophical position on the philisophy of atheism. Thanks !

[Coito ergo sum]

That's a wordy explanation of a nonphilisophical position on the philisophy of atheism. Thanks !

It's a wordy explanation demonstrating quite clearly that atheism is not a philosophy. There is no "philosophy of atheism," since atheists hold many different and diametrically opposed philosophies, some religious, some not. An atheist can be philosophically epicurean, philosophically Marxist, philosophically Buddhist, philosophically Taoist, philosophically Objectivist, philosophically existentialist, etc.

Hopefully, that clears it up for you.

[Atheist-Lite]

That's a wordy explanation of a nonphilisophical position on the philisophy of atheism. Thanks !

It's a wordy explanation demonstrating quite clearly that atheism is not a philosophy. There is no "philosophy of atheism," since atheists hold many different and diametrically opposed philosophies, some religious, some not. An atheist can be philosophically epicurean, philosophically Marxist, philosophically Buddhist, philosophically Taoist, philosophically Objectivist, philosophically existentialist, etc.

Hopefully, that clears it up for you.

A adaptable philisophy, one that can emulate many different philisophical stances including nihilism, is a inherent advantage for the atheist and can go some way to explaining his critical superiority over theistic types?

[Coito ergo sum]

That's a wordy explanation of a nonphilisophical position on the philisophy of atheism. Thanks !

It's a wordy explanation demonstrating quite clearly that atheism is not a philosophy. There is no "philosophy of atheism," since atheists hold many different and diametrically opposed philosophies, some religious, some not. An atheist can be philosophically epicurean, philosophically Marxist, philosophically Buddhist, philosophically Taoist, philosophically Objectivist, philosophically existentialist, etc.

Hopefully, that clears it up for you.

A adaptable philisophy, one that can emulate many different philisophical stances including nihilism, is a inherent advantage for the atheist and can go some way to explaining his critical superiority over theistic types?

No - atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief in all gods, or a belief that there are no gods, or the position that there is insufficient evidence from which to conclude that gods exist.

Most critical superiority over theistic types comes from individual personalities, just as the critical superiority adopted by theistic types over atheists. It's not required that one believe oneself to be superior, but plenty of theists do it, and yes plenty of atheists do it too. It has nothing to do with atheism being a philosophy, though - since it isn't.

[Atheist-Lite]

So if there is no philisophy of atheism how do you know anything or even enough to say anything about it? Being able to parrot a defintion in a blind manner which ignores how ideas, especially fundemental ones, can evolve and adapt appears foolish to me? If you cease to parrot a definition and flag apparent transgressions of the defintion then you have entered the realm of philisophy. However if you keep your stance and claim 'atheism' is simply a negation of theistic notions and beliefs, nothing more, then you have no explanation for why 'new atheism' is apparently self-organising these days after many years of atheistic dormancy?

[Coito ergo sum]

So if there is no philisophy of atheism how do you know anything or even enough to say anything about it?

The same way that we know things about other non-philosophies. Chemistry is not a philosophy either, and neither is philology or engineering. Yet, somehow we are quite able to know things about them, and we are able to know enough about them to say a lot about them.

Atheism is a very limited thing. All it is is this: the belief that there are no gods, or the lack of belief in any gods, or at least the opinion that there is insufficient evidence from which to conclude that there are no gods. That's it. That's not a philosophy. It doesn't require that one have any particular view on right and wrong, good and evil, up and down, individualism or collectivism, objectivity or subjectivity, existence or nonexistence, surrealism or realism, modernism or postmodernism -- none of that flows from atheism or is prohibited by it, and you will find atheists embracing all those different things.

Atheism itself has no philosophy.

Being able to parrot a defintion in a blind manner which ignores how ideas, especially fundemental ones, can evolve and adapt appears foolish to me?

Is that a question? Look - it's not parroting a definition. It's telling you what it is. Words mean things. That's what atheism means. It doesn't mean something else.

If you cease to parrot a definition and flag apparent transgressions of the defintion then you have entered the realm of philisophy.

However if you keep your stance and claim 'atheism' is simply a negation of theistic notions and beliefs, nothing more, then you have no explanation for why 'new atheism' is apparently self-organising these days after many years of atheistic dormancy?

That's all it is. Other things are other things.

Let me address it by asking you a question: What do you think are the main points of the "philosophy of atheism?"

[Gawdzilla Sama]

This kind of thing makes Baby Darwin cry.

[devogue]

I'm away for a wank.

[Stein]

What do you think are the main points of the "philosophy of atheism?"

The best way -- IMO -- of answering that question may be to address its (extant, known) history.

I think it only honest to let readers view the data on all pioneering atheists for themselves. I want to stress that not all pioneering atheists are amoral. Far from it. What they lack, though, is an originality in both social altruism and in a take on the supernatural combined. They're either genuinely original (for their culture) in a culturally non-dependent altruistic social ethic, while adopting the known atheism of some mentor clearly familiar to them and their reading public. Or they are genuinely original (for their culture) in articulating a culturally non-dependent atheist take on the nature of things, while sincerely adopting someone else's already well-known altruist ethic. Or they are genuinely original (for their culture) in articulating a culturally non-dependent atheist take on the nature of things, while not engaging in any kind of thoughts on a social ethic at all. Or they are genuinely original (for their culture) in articulating both a culturally non-dependent atheist take on the nature of things and a culturally non-dependent self-made social ethic, which is always a self-centered social ethic rather than an altruistic one. They never combine a pioneering atheism with a pioneering altruism.


================================================

c.650 b.c.e.: Sarvasiddhantasamgraha (by Samkara); Sad-Darsana-Samuccaya (by Haribhadra Suri); Sarvadarsanasangraha (by Madhavacarya); Brhaspati - Thinker

There have undoubtedly been many atheists throughout human history -- one might even speculate whether or not the earliest believers predated or postdated the earliest atheists -- but humanity's written paper trail yields the name of one figure who was earlier than any other (known) writer in setting down an unprecedented, pioneering atheistic construct: the Indian thinker, Brhaspati (not to be confused with a mythical Brhaspati who is a divine figure in the Hindu pantheon), who pioneered the Lokayata philosophy. Brhaspati tied the Lokayata philosophy to an equally pioneering creed of social values. (Prominent in some ancient sources is the popularizer of Brhaspati's ideas, Carvaka.)

I go into Brhaspati in somewhat greater detail here than the others because his is the very earliest known philosophy that is either self-centered or atheistic, and we can also trace occasional echoes of his thinking in later philosophers (http://etd.lib.ttu.edu/theses/available ... 156333.pdf).

A century or so earlier than Buddha, but of the same ancient Indian culture, Brhaspati contrasts with Buddha when Brhaspati asserts that there are no gods and no afterlife. He does share Buddha's distaste for the caste system, though. In addition, an individualism in Brhaspati's creed resonates through later generations, not just the strong assertion by the Greek leader Critias in his Sisyphus that gods were merely invented to prevent people from thinking they could get away with wrongs done secretly, but also later assertions for the privileges of the strong from those like Nietzsche and Rand. Brhaspati's own Lokayata Sutra is now lost, but the reliability of the two earliest extant summaries of its contents, Sarvasiddhantasamgraha, by a Samkara early in the C.E., and Sad-Darsana-Samuccaya, by the roughly contemporaneous Haribhadra Suri, seem readily validated by an approving contemporary citation from these summaries in yet another tract, Tattvopaplavasimha, written by a fervent admirer of Brhaspati, one Jayarasi Bhatta. Unfortunately, Tattvopaplavasimha is not a summation of Brhaspati, but merely an original take by Bhatta on the essence of inference, so I don't use it here. The most detailed extant summary of the Lokayata Sutra, with purportedly direct quotes from Brhaspati himself, is Sarvadarsanasangraha, by Madhavacarya. But this dates from approximately half a millennium later than the other two summaries. Still, some scholars (not all) tend to favor it because of its more detailed presentation. I enclose the first two earliest summaries in their entirety, together with the direct quotes from Brhaspati in Sarvadarsanasangraha.


Sarvasiddhantasamgraha (by Samkara)

The Lokayatikas do not admit the existence of anything

"but the four elements, earth, water, fire and air";

there is none other.
Only the perceived exists; the unperceivable does not exist, by reason of its never having been perceived; even the believers in the invisible never say that the invisible has been perceived.
If the rarely perceived be taken for the unperceived, how can they call it the unperceived? How can the ever-unperceived, like things such as the horns of a hare, be an existent?
Others should not here postulate merit and demerit from happiness and misery. A person is happy or miserable through nature; there is no other cause.
Who paints the peacocks, or who makes the cuckoos sing? There exists here no cause excepting nature.
The soul is but the body characterized by the attributes signified in the expressions, I am stout, I am youthful, I am grown up, I am old, etc. It is not something other than that body.
The consciousness that is found in the modifications of non-intelligent elements [i.e., in organisms formed out of matter] is produced in the manner of the red colour out of the combination of betel, areca-nut and lime.
There is no world other than this; there is no heaven and no hell; the realm of Siva and like regions are invented by stupid impostors of other schools of thought.
The enjoyment of heaven lies in eating delicious food, keeping the company of young women, using fine clothes, perfumes, garlands, sandal paste, etc.;
The pain of hell lies in the troubles that arise from enemies, weapons, diseases; while liberation is death which is the cessation of life-breath.
The wise therefore ought not to take pains on account of that; it is only the fool who wears himself out by penances, fasts, etc.

"Chastity and other such ordinances are laid down by clever weaklings; gifts of gold and land, the pleasure of invitations to dinner, are devised by indigent people with stomachs lean with hunger.
"The building of temples, houses for water-supply, tanks, wells, resting places, and the like, please only travelers, not others.
"The Agnihotra ritual, the three Vedas, the triple staff, the ash-smearing, are the ways of gaining a livelihood for those who are lacking in intellect and energy." -- so thinks Brhaspati.

The wise should enjoy the pleasures of this world through the more appropriate available means of agriculture, tending cattle, trade, political administration, etc.

Sad-Darsana-Samuccaya (by Haribhadra Suri)

There is neither god nor liberation. Merit and demerit also do not exist. Nor is there any fruit of virtue and vice.
This world consists of only as much as is within the scope of the senses. What the vastly learned ones speak of is but similar to 'Oh! Dear! Look at the footprints of the wolf!'
Oh! The one who has become all the more beautiful! Drink and eat. Oh! The one with a charming body! That which is past does not belong to you. Oh! The timid one! The past never comes back. This body is only a collectivity.
Moreover,

"earth, water, fire and air are the four forms of matter".

The only valid form of knowledge is the one produced by the senses.
When there is a collectivity of the forms of matter, the earth, etc., there is production of the body. Just as the power of intoxication from the ingredients of a spiritous drink, so also is determined the presence of the self's consciousness.
Therefore, on the part of the ordinary people, the activity for the obtainment of the unseen, leaving aside the seen, is only extreme foolishness.
The pleasure that is produced in a person due to the obtainment of the desired and the avoidance of the undesired is useless.
The implication of the conclusions is to be critically discussed by the intelligent.

Brhaspati citations in Sarvadarsanasangraha (by Madhavacarya)

"While life is yours live joyously;
No one can avoid Death's searching eye:
When this body of ours is burnt,
How can it ever return again?"

"That the pleasure arising to man
from contact with sensible objects,
is to be relinquished because accompanied by pain-
such is the reasoning of fools.
The kernels of the paddy, rich with finest white grains,
What man, seeking his own true interest,
would fling them away
because of a covering of husk and dust?"

"The Sacrifices, the three Vedas, the ascetic's three staves,
and smearing oneself with ashes-
[T]hese are but means of livelihood
for those who have no manliness nor sense."

"Fire is hot, water cold,
refreshingly cool is the breeze of morning;
By whom came this variety?
They were born of their own nature."

"There is no heaven, no final liberation,
nor any soul in another world,
Nor do the actions of the four castes,
orders, or priesthoods produce any real effect.

"If a beast slain as an offering to the dead
will itself go to heaven,
why does the sacrificer not straightway offer his father?

"If offerings to the dead produce gratification
to those who have reached the land of the dead,
why the need to set out provisions
for travelers starting on this journey?
If our offering sacrifices here gratify beings in heaven,
why not make food offerings down below
to gratify those standing on housetops?

"While life remains, let a man live happily,
let him feed on melted ghee though he runs in debt;
When once the body becomes ashes,
how can it ever return again?

"If he who departs from the body goes to another world,
why does he not come back again,
restless for love of his kinfolk?
It is only as a means of livelihood
that brahmins have established here
abundant ceremonies for the dead-
there is no other fruit anywhere."



Sociopathic philosophies can still exert a hold of sorts if advanced with enough charisma and cunning. But they don't tend to transform whole cultures for more than -- maybe -- a couple of centuries, at most. Those "ethics" that have longer influence than that are, sooner or later, the more stable ones that effectively include greater numbers within the "social compact" than would a Brhaspati's. Inclusiveness just yields greater long-term stability. Yes, there can be appalling suffering so long as a sociopathic philosophy prevails. And it can last for as long as four or five generations. But it is ultimately self-destructive and unstable through its very cruelty, recalling in a way the self-centered habits of species that don't thrive in the Gould model.

Brhaspati certainly had his many adherents in his day; and it could even be that latter-day nonbelieving "self-centered-ists" like Rand and Nietzsche (and Hobbes, to an extent) constitute vague echoes of what came out of India nearly three thousand years ago, reflecting the same apparent lack of a strongly caring ethic.

In consulting with a Sanskrit specialist at the New York Public Library, I managed to confirm that Brhaspati -- putting his atheism entirely aside -- is, in fact, the first extant espouser of an overtly self-centered (non-communitarian, non-inclusive, if you will) philosophy (in fact, philosophy as a discipline pretty much starts in India, ca. 1000 B.C.E. and then spreads to Greece, Rome, etc.). So it's sobering to think that the first (extant) espouser of such an anti-social philosophy and the first (extant) overt atheist are one and the same. Self-centeredness as a deliberate, conscious and articulately worked out philosophy literally begins with Brhaspati. Sobering that the earliest (known) atheist, Brhaspati, is virtually the earliest (known) social isolationist as well.

=============================

LEUKIPPOS

Going back to the ancient Greeks, we have the more creditable Leukippos of the 5th century b.c., the ingenious elder pioneer of the ancient Greek Atomist school, the first school to recognize that all life is composed of atoms. Frustratingly, though, it is clear from what little we have of Leukippos's own voice that he himself was solely engaged in the close study of what many term purely as physics, with social justice and ethics and philosophy never an interest of his. In fact, Epicurus appears to have remarked that Leukippos was no philosopher at all. The one direct quote we have from Leukippos is "Nothing proceeds but from necessity".

=============================================

DEMOCRITUS

Now, Democritus was one who explicitly urged that everyone be engaged in public service. Admirable sentiment, of course. The "asterisk" here is that his non-belief is not original with him, since he was an avid student of and proselytizer for Leukippos, somewhat less than twenty years Leukippos's junior.

=============================================

DIAGORAS

Diagoras was a poet and a pupil of Democritus who adopted his mentor's skepticism, once an oponent of his in a suit for plagiarism failed to be punished by the gods for the perjury of insisting that a poetic conceit he had stolen from Diagoras was still his own.

=============================================

CRITIAS

d. 403 b.c.e.: Critias's Sisyphus

The ancient Greek leader Critias is the Western World's earliest extant formulator of an overt, unequivocal, comprehensive atheistic stance -- making the Critias fragment of incalculable historic importance. It was preserved, with one lacuna, in Section I of Sextus Empiricus's Against the Physicists and was lifted from Critias's satyr-play Sisyphus. Its historical importance warrants its citation here in full:


A time there was when anarchy did rule
The lives of men, which then were like the beasts,
Enslaved to force. Nor was there then reward
For good men, nor for wicked punishment.
Next, as I deem, did men establish laws
For punishment, that Justice might be lord
Of all mankind, and Insolence enchain'd.
And whosoe'er did sin was penalized.
Next, as the laws did hold men back from deeds
Of open violence, but still such deeds
Were done in secret, -- then, as I maintain,
Some shrewd man first, a man in counsel wise,
Discovered unto men the fear of Gods,
Thereby to frighten sinners should they sin
E'en secretly in deed, or word, or thought.
Hence was it that he brought in Deity,
Telling how God enjoys an endless life,
Hears with his mind and sees, and taketh thought
And heeds things, and his nature is divine,
So that he hearkens to men's every word
And has the power to see men's every act.
E'en if you plan in silence some ill deed,
The Gods will surely mark it. For in them
Wisdom resides. So, speaking words like these,
Most cunning doctrine did he introduce,
The truth concealing under speech untrue.
The place he spoke of as the God's abode
Was that whereby he could affright men most, --
The place from which, he knew, both terrors came
And easements unto men of toilsome life --
To wit the vault above, wherein do dwell
The lightnings, he beheld, and awesome claps
Of thunder, and the starry face of heaven,
Fair-spangled by that cunning craftsman Time, --
Whence, too, the meteor's glowing mass doth speed
And liquid rain descends upon the earth.
Such were the fears wherewith he hedged men round,
And so to God he gave a fitting home,
By this his speech, and in a fitting place,
And thus extinguished lawlessness by laws. . .
- - - - - - - - - - - -[ lacuna ] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
. . .Thus first did some man, as I deem, persuade
Men to suppose a race of Gods exists.

Critias's ethics are, sadly, recorded for all time. He was the chief oligarch among the Thirty Tyrants at Athens, 404 - 403 B.C., instituting policies like abrogating the promise to cobble a new Constitution, executing without trial statesmen like his own friend Theramenes when faced with advocacy for a moderate course between oligarchy and democracy, and summarily executing without trial dozens of private citizens as well, just to facilitate the use of their wealth -- in the process thinning out the population in various pockets of the surrounding countryside. Even if we accept the notion that tyranny of this sort was less frowned upon in ancient times than it would be today, the Athenians of that era, in fact, reeling from such a Draconian reaction to the world’s first democracy, immediately came to regard the brief reign of the Thirty Tyrants as a singularly cruel and bloodthirsty chapter by any standards.

==========================================

THEODORUS

A century or so later, there is Theodorus, another ancient Greek, who is -- unlike Democritus -- an original atheist, but also -- like Democritus -- a reasonable socially responsible philosopher. This could have been the perfect combination. Still, his brand of philosophical hedonism partakes partly of Epicurus's more thoughtful spin on hedonism and more directly of Aristippus's mild hedonism, the latter having pioneered the Cyrenaic school. Thus, these are all essentially borrowed ideas on social justice and responsibility, though admirable, unlike the equally admirable Democritus example, whose social reflections were mostly original with him, while his atheism was not.

==========================================

STRATON

Then there is Straton, another upright original atheist and ancient Greek, but seemingly uninfluenced by forebears like Theodorus and/or Democritus and/or Leukippos. His (sincere) ethics, though, constitute a wholehearted adoption of the Socratic model rather than a new paradigm of his own, so he falls within the Theodorus group.

==========================================

VANINI

In the C.E., there is even a genuine martyr of freethought, Vanini. His tongue was amputated and he was strangled and burned at the stake. On his way to this ghastly ordeal, he stated he wished to die "en philosophe" -- with equanimity. He was an avid student of Aristotle, whose concept of the Good Life had deeply impressed this brave nonbeliever. At the same time, where Aristotle states that the Good Life resides ultimately in contemplation, Vanini had enthusiastically adopted the then-new variation on that construct, promulgated by a thinker of his own time whom he adopted as his more immediate model, Pomponazzi. Pomponazzi may be the first to advance the notion that all religions contain a kernel of the truth, but Vanini, a nonbeliever, probably had little interest in that. What he did adopt enthusiastically from Pomponazzi -- and lived and died by -- was Pomponazzi's variation on Aristotle: Instead of the Good Life residing ultimately in contemplation, Pomponazzi stated that the Good Life resides ultimately in moral action. Vanini was courageous in abiding by this lofty ethic in his last hour, but his ethics' unoriginality, however steadfast, probably relegates him to the Theodorus group.

===========================================



KNUTZEN

Mathias Knutzen, who described himself as the first "Conscientist" in a series of path-breaking pamphlets written in German in the 1670s, wrote:


"We declare that God does not exist, we deeply despise the authorities and also reject the churches with all their priests. For us Conscientists the knowledge of a single person is insufficient, only that of the majority is sufficient, as in Luke, 24,39: "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me and see for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have" (because a single person cannot see everything) and the conscience in combination with the knowledge. And this, the conscience, which the generous Mother Nature has given to all humans, replaces for us the bible -- compare Romans, 2, 14-15: (14)"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:" (15)"Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another" -- and the authorities; it is the true judge, as Gregory of Nazianzus testifies ("On his Father's Silence, Because of the Plague of Hail," paragraph 5: "Under what circumstances again is the righteous, when unfortunate, possibly being put to the test, or, when prosperous, being observed, to see if he be poor in mind or not very far superior to visible things, as indeed conscience, our interior and unerring tribunal, tells us"), and is valid for us instead of the priests, because this teacher teaches us "to harm nobody, to live in honor and to give everybody what is his". When we fail to do this, I maintain, as this life is for us the only one we have, our entire life will seem like a host of plagues, even as a hell. If, however, we behave in a just manner, it will be like heaven. This, i.e. the conscience, comes into existence with our birth, and it also dies when we pass into death. These are the principles that are innate in us, and whoever rejects them, rejects himself."


When we research these ethical principles of his -- and their nub is (and actually presented in italics in the original German) "to harm nobody, to live in honor and to give everybody what is his" -- we find that Knutzen, in setting this off in italics, is unabashedly and frankly adopting another's code that he sincerely admires rather than conceptualizing an original groundbreaking one of his own. He is borrowing here from the ancient Roman jurist Ulpian, a polytheist whose writings formed the backbone of the Justinian code. It would have been nice if Knutzen had put some individual and original flesh on the bones of the Ulpian injunction. He might have had a bigger impact; but as it is, he's again, essentially, a "Theodoran".

==========================================

JEAN MESLIER

d. ca. 1720 c.e.: Meslier's Mon Testament

There is one more figure who, like Brhaspati and Critias, developed both a thoroughly autonomous apostasy on belief and also a platform of equally autonomous social action: Jean Meslier. At the outset of Meslier's posthumous tract, Mon Testament, he explicitly rejects the veracity of any and all concepts relating to deity, maintaining that all theism is arrant superstition and that all reality is readily observable by the humblest mortals here on Earth. He maintains there is no dimension beyond the temporal, mortal one, and all lives exist strictly within the three-dimensional universe that we already know. In the extract given here, I give a translation of Meslier's call to social action consequent to his initial declaration of non-belief:


Well ! My dear friends, if you knew of the vanity and the foolishness of the nonsense that you are being entertained with under the pretext of religion, and if you knew how unfairly and how shamefully the tyrants that dominate you take advantage of the authority that they have encroached upon you, you would certainly feel nothing but contempt for everything that you are told to respect and worship, and you would feel nothing but hatred and indignation towards all those who deceive you, who govern you so badly, and who mistreat you so shamefully. This reminds me of a wish that was made formerly by a man, who had neither knowledge nor learning. However, that man had apparently enough wisdom and insight to judge sanely all the detestable deceptions and all the detestable ceremonies that I am blaming here. He was brilliant in the way he expressed his thoughts, and he could understand deeply enough the ins and outs of the mystery of iniquity that I have just discussed, since he could see clearly who was involved and who was responsible for that state of affairs. For all those reasons, he wished that all the great of this world and all the nobles be hanged and strangled with the guts of the priests.(1) That expression certainly sounds rude and gross, but one has to admit that it is frank and guileless. It is short, yet expressive, since it expresses in fairly few words all that those people deserve. As far as I am concerned, my dear friends, if I had a wish to utter on the subject and I would certainly make it if only it could come true I would wish that I had the arms and the strength of a Hercules to rid the world of all vice and iniquity, and to have the pleasure of braining all those monsters of nonsense and iniquity, that make all the peoples of the earth groan so miserably. Do not think, my dear friends, that I am prompted here by any particular desire of revenge, nor any particular interest or animosity. No, my dear friends, no passion is giving me those feelings, or urging me to talk and write thus. I am only motivated by my personal zeal for justice and truth that are so shamefully down-trodden, on the one hand, and by my hatred of vice and iniquity which, as far as I can see, rule everywhere, on the other hand. One can but hate and despise those people who are responsible for so many detestable evils, and who deceive their neighbours so universally. Why, would one not be right to ban and chase away from a town and a province some unashamed, deceitful charlatans who, while pretending to charitably give away salutary remedies and efficient medication, would actually sell at a high price harmful drugs and pernicious ointments? Certainly, one would be right to ban them and chase them as infamous deceivers. In the same way, would one not be right to blame openly and severely punish all those crooks and thieves who spend their time robbing, killing and slaughtering inhumanly those who have the ill luck to fall into their hands? Yes, beyond any doubt, it would serve them right to be severely punished, and one would be right to hate and dislike them; and it would even be a crime to bear that they remain unpunished for their robberies. All the more reason, my dear friends, are we entitled to blame, to hate and to dislike, as I do now, all those ministers of nonsense and iniquity who dominate you so tyrannically, using their power either on your consciences, or on your bodies and your assets. The ministers of religion, who dominate your consciences, are the greatest deceivers of the peoples, whereas the princes and the other great of this world, who dominate your bodies and your assets, are the biggest thieves and murderers on earth. All those who have come, said Jesus-Christ, are robbers and thieves. Omnes quotquot venerunt, fures sunt et latrones.(2)


(1) Erganes, King of Ethiopia, had all the Jupiter priests of one of his towns killed, because they had spread their nonsense and superstitions all around the town (Pierre Bayle's Historical Dictionary ). The King of Babylon did the same with the priests of Bel (cf. Daniel, 14:21)

(2) John, 10:8 [KJV: All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.]

This paragraph was circulated ad nauseum in its time, and some scholars view it as the seed for the mentality of the Reign of Terror.

===================================



KARL MARX

Finally, there is Karl Marx. Karl Marx emphasized the primacy of life on this world rather than an importance in the metaphysical, and in doing so, indeed provided a new social code -- and, finally, a social code marked by a steadfastly humanist quality that some view as altruistic as well.

Was Marx -- in writing 150 years later or so later than Knutzen -- reintroducing Knutzen's atheism to an altogether innocent reading public, and thus as much a ground-breaker as Knutzen? Not really. In his youth, Marx was an avid reader of Ludwig Feuerbach, who had helped popularize atheism throughout Germany before Marx came along. And even Feuerbach did not literally introduce atheism into the philosophical "bloodstream" of Germany. Feuerbach simply brought it to wider attention. The German intelligentsia were fully aware of atheism as a fully developed philosophy for many decades before Feuerbach. The old Knutzen pamphlets never entirely disappeared from circulation. Thus, Marx emerged from a hyper-intellectual milieu in Germany that was fully aware of atheism as a vibrant and viable philosophy.

Since Marx was already brought to atheism by reading Feuerbach, many of Feuerbach's readers of that time likewise snapped up Marx -- as being an eager follower. In our tracing the German atheist tradition right back to Knutzen, Marx merely reflects a continuing tradition of some standing by the time his own thoughts are published.

Of course, while not literally an atheism groundbreaker, Marx's popularizing of atheism eventually outstripped Feuerbach's, even though Feuerbach was his senior.

As to his original social philosophy, there was a sometimes cold-hearted aspect to it that offsets his apparent humanism to a degree. An occasional "take-no-prisoners" attitude is reflected in his response to Tsar Alexander II. When Alexander was freeing the serfs, Marx remarked --

[paraphrase] "He's still a Tsar and therefore a walking epitome of an evil and doomed order".

And when Alexander was assassinated, Marx openly rejoiced at his death, as constituting a welcome blow to the "ancien regime". His rejoicing at the death of a man whom he knew full well to be a real reformer is fully documented in his own words, and that leaves him as arguably less admirable than, say, a Vanini or a Democritus.


Stein

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Nice copy pasta.

[Atheist-Lite]

Nice copy pasta.