I’m reading the book “The Human Cosmos”, which is both very interesting and very annoying.

A passage in there suggested to me that Thomas Paine was an atheist. Checking in TATE, it seems he wasn’t, but he was very anti organised religions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine#Religious_views

This raised two questions in my mind:
Who was the first prominent person who was openly an atheist?
Why don’t I know the answer to that question?

To keep things simple, lets keep it to the European cultures, and derivatives thereof, since about 1000 AD

The Rev Dodgson said:

I’m reading the book “The Human Cosmos”, which is both very interesting and very annoying.

A passage in there suggested to me that Thomas Paine was an atheist. Checking in TATE, it seems he wasn’t, but he was very anti organised religions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine#Religious_views

This raised two questions in my mind:
Who was the first prominent person who was openly an atheist?
Why don’t I know the answer to that question?

To keep things simple, lets keep it to the European cultures, and derivatives thereof, since about 1000 AD

One thing I want to clear up is that Einstein was an atheist, he said so. Far too often I hear the false claim that he was religious.

> Before Thomas Paine’s arrest and imprisonment in France (1793), knowing that he would probably be arrested and executed, following in the tradition of early eighteenth-century British deism Paine wrote the first part of The Age of Reason, an assault on organized “revealed” religion combining a compilation of the many inconsistencies he found in the Bible. Paine’s religious views as expressed in “The Age of Reason” caused quite a stir in religious society, effectively splitting the religious groups into two major factions: those who wanted church disestablishment, and the Christians who wanted Christianity to continue having a strong social influence. 1737-1809.

When I think of prominent early atheists, I immediately think of Jeremy Bentham, the great ethicist, who influenced utilitarianism and humanism. He spoke out against the Christian claim to morality. But I need to check whether he was actually either early or atheist. (Checks web). 1748 to 1832. He advocated “the separation of church and state, equal rights for women, the right to divorce, and the decriminalising of homosexual acts” which at the time were all anti-Christian. He spoke out against the then requirement that all students of London University must be Church of England.

So Bentham was after Paine.

Looking further into wikipedia, “The actual term atheism emerged first in the 16th century. … The first individuals to identify themselves using the word atheist lived in the 18th century during the Age of Enlightenment. The French Revolution was noted for its unprecedented atheism.”

A history of atheism was published in 1992. https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198227366.001.0001/acprof-9780198227366

This book traces atheism back to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Ascham 1515 to 1568. Other “notorious educated infidels” include Giulio Cesare Vanini 1589 to 1619.

In the 1620s, Marin Mersenne asserted that Paris contained 50,000 atheists. From France we have Pierre Charron’s” 1541 to 1603 book “De la sagesse”.

“Thomas Hobbes”. 1588 to 1679. His religious views expressed in Leviathan (1651) have been subjected to extensive debate. Essentially, Hobbes early works are Christian and later works are atheist. There is some overlap between the two.

The Rev Dodgson said:

I’m reading the book “The Human Cosmos”, which is both very interesting and very annoying.

A passage in there suggested to me that Thomas Paine was an atheist. Checking in TATE, it seems he wasn’t, but he was very anti organised religions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine#Religious_views

This raised two questions in my mind:
Who was the first prominent person who was openly an atheist?
Why don’t I know the answer to that question?

To keep things simple, lets keep it to the European cultures, and derivatives thereof, since about 1000 AD

Could be a scientist/inventor who pretended to be religious to get sponsored be a patron.

List of atheist philosophers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheist_philosophers

Exegesis of the Septuagint’s narrative suggests it might have been Cain (didn’t he kill his brother). But it might have been his son.
In an alternate translation of Genesis 4:17, endorsed by a minority of modern commentators, Cain’s son Enoch builds a city and names it after his son, Irad. Such a city could correspond with Eridu, one of the most ancient cities known. Philo observes that it makes no sense for Cain, the third human on Earth, to have founded an actual city. Instead, he argues, the city symbolizes an unrighteous philosophy.
However that probably falls without the terms and conditions laid out in the original post concerning latter day Europeans.

Bubblecar said:

List of atheist philosophers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheist_philosophers

Thanks moll and Bubblecar.

A shame that list isn’t sortable, but from a quick scan it seems the first meeting my criteria is David Hume.

Who I’m happy to see was a Scot.

So why isn’t he more famous?

Peak Warming Man said:

Exegesis of the Septuagint’s narrative suggests it might have been Cain (didn’t he kill his brother). But it might have been his son.
In an alternate translation of Genesis 4:17, endorsed by a minority of modern commentators, Cain’s son Enoch builds a city and names it after his son, Irad. Such a city could correspond with Eridu, one of the most ancient cities known. Philo observes that it makes no sense for Cain, the third human on Earth, to have founded an actual city. Instead, he argues, the city symbolizes an unrighteous philosophy.
However that probably falls without the terms and conditions laid out in the original post concerning latter day Europeans.

Quite so.

QI, nonetheless.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

List of atheist philosophers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheist_philosophers

Thanks moll and Bubblecar.

A shame that list isn’t sortable, but from a quick scan it seems the first meeting my criteria is David Hume.

Who I’m happy to see was a Scot.

So why isn’t he more famous?

He is more famous.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

List of atheist philosophers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheist_philosophers

Thanks moll and Bubblecar.

A shame that list isn’t sortable, but from a quick scan it seems the first meeting my criteria is David Hume.

Who I’m happy to see was a Scot.

So why isn’t he more famous?

He is more famous.

…than you were apparently aware :)

surely there have been many atheists prior to theism

I reckon it would be hard to nail down. Probably there were quite a few atheists in a practical sense that simply kept quiet about it or just kept up appearances. Others perhaps admitted to it privately but never went public on it.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

List of atheist philosophers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheist_philosophers

Thanks moll and Bubblecar.

A shame that list isn’t sortable, but from a quick scan it seems the first meeting my criteria is David Hume.

Who I’m happy to see was a Scot.

So why isn’t he more famous?

He is more famous.

He’s fairly famous, but he can’t be more famous than he is.

I had no idea he was the first open atheist.

Bubblecar said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Thanks moll and Bubblecar.

A shame that list isn’t sortable, but from a quick scan it seems the first meeting my criteria is David Hume.

Who I’m happy to see was a Scot.

So why isn’t he more famous?

He is more famous.

…than you were apparently aware :)

How do you know how famous I think he is?

SCIENCE said:

surely there have been many atheists prior to theism

But Europe post-1000 AD is not prior to theism.

Also, I’m not sure that the title “atheist” can be applied unless there is something called theism active at the same time.

Kapila, circa 600 BC

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

I’m reading the book “The Human Cosmos”, which is both very interesting and very annoying.

A passage in there suggested to me that Thomas Paine was an atheist. Checking in TATE, it seems he wasn’t, but he was very anti organised religions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine#Religious_views

This raised two questions in my mind:
Who was the first prominent person who was openly an atheist?
Why don’t I know the answer to that question?

To keep things simple, lets keep it to the European cultures, and derivatives thereof, since about 1000 AD

One thing I want to clear up is that Einstein was an atheist, he said so. Far too often I hear the false claim that he was religious.

> Before Thomas Paine’s arrest and imprisonment in France (1793), knowing that he would probably be arrested and executed, following in the tradition of early eighteenth-century British deism Paine wrote the first part of The Age of Reason, an assault on organized “revealed” religion combining a compilation of the many inconsistencies he found in the Bible. Paine’s religious views as expressed in “The Age of Reason” caused quite a stir in religious society, effectively splitting the religious groups into two major factions: those who wanted church disestablishment, and the Christians who wanted Christianity to continue having a strong social influence. 1737-1809.

When I think of prominent early atheists, I immediately think of Jeremy Bentham, the great ethicist, who influenced utilitarianism and humanism. He spoke out against the Christian claim to morality. But I need to check whether he was actually either early or atheist. (Checks web). 1748 to 1832. He advocated “the separation of church and state, equal rights for women, the right to divorce, and the decriminalising of homosexual acts” which at the time were all anti-Christian. He spoke out against the then requirement that all students of London University must be Church of England.

So Bentham was after Paine.

Looking further into wikipedia, “The actual term atheism emerged first in the 16th century. … The first individuals to identify themselves using the word atheist lived in the 18th century during the Age of Enlightenment. The French Revolution was noted for its unprecedented atheism.”

A history of atheism was published in 1992. https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198227366.001.0001/acprof-9780198227366

This book traces atheism back to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Ascham 1515 to 1568. Other “notorious educated infidels” include Giulio Cesare Vanini 1589 to 1619.

In the 1620s, Marin Mersenne asserted that Paris contained 50,000 atheists. From France we have Pierre Charron’s” 1541 to 1603 book “De la sagesse”.

“Thomas Hobbes”. 1588 to 1679. His religious views expressed in Leviathan (1651) have been subjected to extensive debate. Essentially, Hobbes early works are Christian and later works are atheist. There is some overlap between the two.

From 1640 to 1660 things were a bit muddied by the growth of “religious heterodoxy”. ie. ideas that are decidedly not Christian, but are not necessaily atheist. In this period we have “Laurence Clarkson’s pantheism, overlapping with deistic views of the eighteenth century; Richard Overton’s mortalism; and William Walwyn’s indebtedness to Montaigne and Charron and the skeptical crisis.”

We also have the rise of Jewish anti-Christianity. “Jewish texts were not only the open anti-Christian treatises in circulation during the Enlightenment. There were also various subversive compilations such as the Theophrastus redivivus and the Traité des trois imposteurs.”

Going backwards in time, not atheist but a “great rationalist”, is Baruch Spinoza 1632 to 1677. His work included “modern biblical criticism, including modern conceptions of the self and the universe”.

dv said:

Kapila, circa 600 BC

1600 years to early.

Matthias Knutzen was a German critic of religion and the author of three atheistic pamphlets. In modern Western history, he is the first atheist known by name and in person.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthias_Knutzen

According to Knutzen, there are no transcendent entities such as God, the devil, or immortal souls, the Bible is implausible due to its many contradictions, and the guidelines for human behavior should be reason and conscience. Therefore, both secular and ecclesiastical authorities are superfluous. In his Latin letter Amicus Amicis Amica! Knudsen summarizes his beliefs as:

Insuper Deum negamus, Magistratum ex alto despicimus, Templa quoque cum omnibus Sacerdotibus rejicientes. Moreover, we deny God, we despise authorities from above and we reject the churches together with all ministers.

For Knutzen, the uppermost rule was: “Live honestly, do not harm anybody and give everybody what they deserve.” (in Latin, Honeste vivere, neminem laedere, suum cuique tribuere), an old Roman legal principle according to Ulpian.

esselte said:

Matthias Knutzen was a German critic of religion and the author of three atheistic pamphlets. In modern Western history, he is the first atheist known by name and in person.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthias_Knutzen

According to Knutzen, there are no transcendent entities such as God, the devil, or immortal souls, the Bible is implausible due to its many contradictions, and the guidelines for human behavior should be reason and conscience. Therefore, both secular and ecclesiastical authorities are superfluous. In his Latin letter Amicus Amicis Amica! Knudsen summarizes his beliefs as:

Insuper Deum negamus, Magistratum ex alto despicimus, Templa quoque cum omnibus Sacerdotibus rejicientes. Moreover, we deny God, we despise authorities from above and we reject the churches together with all ministers.

For Knutzen, the uppermost rule was: “Live honestly, do not harm anybody and give everybody what they deserve.” (in Latin, Honeste vivere, neminem laedere, suum cuique tribuere), an old Roman legal principle according to Ulpian.

Looks like the best contender so far.

Not included in the list posted by Bubblecar.

The Rev Dodgson said:

esselte said:

Matthias Knutzen was a German critic of religion and the author of three atheistic pamphlets. In modern Western history, he is the first atheist known by name and in person.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthias_Knutzen

According to Knutzen, there are no transcendent entities such as God, the devil, or immortal souls, the Bible is implausible due to its many contradictions, and the guidelines for human behavior should be reason and conscience. Therefore, both secular and ecclesiastical authorities are superfluous. In his Latin letter Amicus Amicis Amica! Knudsen summarizes his beliefs as:

Insuper Deum negamus, Magistratum ex alto despicimus, Templa quoque cum omnibus Sacerdotibus rejicientes. Moreover, we deny God, we despise authorities from above and we reject the churches together with all ministers.

For Knutzen, the uppermost rule was: “Live honestly, do not harm anybody and give everybody what they deserve.” (in Latin, Honeste vivere, neminem laedere, suum cuique tribuere), an old Roman legal principle according to Ulpian.

Looks like the best contender so far.

Not included in the list posted by Bubblecar.

Not even included here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_(surnames_H_to_K)

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

List of atheist philosophers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheist_philosophers

Thanks moll and Bubblecar.

A shame that list isn’t sortable, but from a quick scan it seems the first meeting my criteria is David Hume.

Who I’m happy to see was a Scot.

So why isn’t he more famous?

David Hume is exceedingly famous, in my book.

But he was very late, wasn’t he? So late that I didn’t even bother listing him.

I’ll check. 1711 to 1776. Oh, he was before Bentham, I’d thought he was later.

“This places him with Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and George Berkeley as a British Empiricist.” Of the five, I know most about David Hume.

I think you haven’t heard about the first famous atheists because they weren’t British, and probably their works weren’t even translated into English. The British always want to claim “the first” as one of their own. But it makes more sense for the first atheists to be in Rome, after seeing first hand the Pope and cardinals in action.

I guess atheist can mean pagan

way back on the african savanna, i’d imagine the atheist (equivalent of) was the eccentric one that didn’t eat so much with the group, or was reluctant to go on the hunt, wasn’t so much inclined to observe customs, offer reassurances that way of being safe company

transition said:

I guess atheist can mean pagan

way back on the african savanna, i’d imagine the atheist (equivalent of) was the eccentric one that didn’t eat so much with the group, or was reluctant to go on the hunt, wasn’t so much inclined to observe customs, offer reassurances that way of being safe company

And got eaten by a lion.

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

I guess atheist can mean pagan

way back on the african savanna, i’d imagine the atheist (equivalent of) was the eccentric one that didn’t eat so much with the group, or was reluctant to go on the hunt, wasn’t so much inclined to observe customs, offer reassurances that way of being safe company

And got eaten by a lion.

whatever example may have studied the stars, and dung beetles, wondered about rolling a turd in the dark, how that might be done

transition said:

I guess atheist can mean pagan

way back on the african savanna, i’d imagine the atheist (equivalent of) was the eccentric one that didn’t eat so much with the group, or was reluctant to go on the hunt, wasn’t so much inclined to observe customs, offer reassurances that way of being safe company

The question was specifically about western Europe from 1000 CE onwards.

party_pants said:

transition said:

I guess atheist can mean pagan

way back on the african savanna, i’d imagine the atheist (equivalent of) was the eccentric one that didn’t eat so much with the group, or was reluctant to go on the hunt, wasn’t so much inclined to observe customs, offer reassurances that way of being safe company

The question was specifically about western Europe from 1000 CE onwards.

yeah we apologise for muddying the waters

though also is there anything particularly outstanding about this form of running against common modes of thinking

party_pants said:

transition said:

I guess atheist can mean pagan

way back on the african savanna, i’d imagine the atheist (equivalent of) was the eccentric one that didn’t eat so much with the group, or was reluctant to go on the hunt, wasn’t so much inclined to observe customs, offer reassurances that way of being safe company

The question was specifically about western Europe from 1000 CE onwards.

yeah I did point out atheist can mean pagan, not irrelevant to the intro

It shouldn’t be that hard to track down, it’s a very small minority.

SCIENCE said:

party_pants said:

transition said:

I guess atheist can mean pagan

way back on the african savanna, i’d imagine the atheist (equivalent of) was the eccentric one that didn’t eat so much with the group, or was reluctant to go on the hunt, wasn’t so much inclined to observe customs, offer reassurances that way of being safe company

The question was specifically about western Europe from 1000 CE onwards.

yeah we apologise for muddying the waters

though also is there anything particularly outstanding about this form of running against common modes of thinking

Well as PWM says, for most of history, since religions got stated, it has only been a tiny minority, if not exactly zero, whereas some forms of running against common modes are pretty common, so yes, I think that makes it outstanding.

mollwollfumble said:

I think you haven’t heard about the first famous atheists because they weren’t British, and probably their works weren’t even translated into English. The British always want to claim “the first” as one of their own. But it makes more sense for the first atheists to be in Rome, after seeing first hand the Pope and cardinals in action.

Don’t know about that.

My primary source on matters philosophical lists 14 philosophers, of whom only 3 are British (David Hume is included in the 3).

Given the behaviour of teenagers, I’m going to say that Jesus was the first atheist from the ages of 14 – 18

Arts said:

Given the behaviour of teenagers, I’m going to say that Jesus was the first atheist from the ages of 14 – 18

“I don’t believe in you.. you’ll never understand me”

diddly-squat said:

Arts said:

Given the behaviour of teenagers, I’m going to say that Jesus was the first atheist from the ages of 14 – 18

“I don’t believe in you.. you’ll never understand me”

His brother Humperdoo was the favourite

Cymek said:

diddly-squat said:

Arts said:

Given the behaviour of teenagers, I’m going to say that Jesus was the first atheist from the ages of 14 – 18

“I don’t believe in you.. you’ll never understand me”

His brother Humperdoo was the favourite

my kids have said ‘that’s because (the other one) is your favourite” once or twice and I responded with “They are right now” so that stopped that bullshit pretty quickly

Arts said:

Given the behaviour of teenagers, I’m going to say that Jesus was the first atheist from the ages of 14 – 18

Mary: You’ve got to believe in yourself son.

JC: That’s easy for you to say, you didn’t have anyone telling you that your mother was a virgin, and your father was some ineffable entity that created everything, but is only responsible for the good bits.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Arts said:

Given the behaviour of teenagers, I’m going to say that Jesus was the first atheist from the ages of 14 – 18

Mary: You’ve got to believe in yourself son.

JC: That’s easy for you to say, you didn’t have anyone telling you that your mother was a virgin, and your father was some ineffable entity that created everything, but is only responsible for the good bits.

That’s when he said to his 12 best mates, lets go down bby Gallilee and drop some acid.

Cymek said:

diddly-squat said:

Arts said:

Given the behaviour of teenagers, I’m going to say that Jesus was the first atheist from the ages of 14 – 18

“I don’t believe in you.. you’ll never understand me”

His brother Humperdoo was the favourite

so are we now saying that basically all people are atheists, just some are more atheist by 1 than others

>Who was the first prominent person who was openly an atheist?

what would be needed to answer that question, I suppose it would require a fairly strict definition of atheist maybe, the person (the example atheist) would need self-declare or self-identify as an atheist, which all seems straightforward enough

not sure about the openly requirements, i’d expect there could be more than one way to be openly atheist without going about explicitly telling people that’s what you are

I mean there could be a lot of prominent people that never spoke any words or wrote anything like I deny the existence of Gods or whatever, not one explicit word writ or utterance that way, yet much else of their behavior might strongly indicate unbelief

presumably a true atheist would be a mix of behaviors indicating atheist conviction, you wouldn’t rely on them just saying so

anyway i’m stuck for a moment wondering what it is to be openly atheist

you mean overtly self-declared, explicitly declared, prominently declared, I guess, worded, stated in words

transition said:

>Who was the first prominent person who was openly an atheist?

what would be needed to answer that question, I suppose it would require a fairly strict definition of atheist maybe, the person (the example atheist) would need self-declare or self-identify as an atheist, which all seems straightforward enough

not sure about the openly requirements, i’d expect there could be more than one way to be openly atheist without going about explicitly telling people that’s what you are

I mean there could be a lot of prominent people that never spoke any words or wrote anything like I deny the existence of Gods or whatever, not one explicit word writ or utterance that way, yet much else of their behavior might strongly indicate unbelief

presumably a true atheist would be a mix of behaviors indicating atheist conviction, you wouldn’t rely on them just saying so

anyway i’m stuck for a moment wondering what it is to be openly atheist

you mean overtly self-declared, explicitly declared, prominently declared, I guess, worded, stated in words

I have no religion …
… which means that I am openly against all religions …
… including atheism and agnosticism.

Applying this to what transition asked. Atheists are actively anti-monotheistic.

mollwollfumble said:

transition said:

>Who was the first prominent person who was openly an atheist?

what would be needed to answer that question, I suppose it would require a fairly strict definition of atheist maybe, the person (the example atheist) would need self-declare or self-identify as an atheist, which all seems straightforward enough

not sure about the openly requirements, i’d expect there could be more than one way to be openly atheist without going about explicitly telling people that’s what you are

I mean there could be a lot of prominent people that never spoke any words or wrote anything like I deny the existence of Gods or whatever, not one explicit word writ or utterance that way, yet much else of their behavior might strongly indicate unbelief

presumably a true atheist would be a mix of behaviors indicating atheist conviction, you wouldn’t rely on them just saying so

anyway i’m stuck for a moment wondering what it is to be openly atheist

you mean overtly self-declared, explicitly declared, prominently declared, I guess, worded, stated in words

I have no religion …
… which means that I am openly against all religions …
… including atheism and agnosticism.

Applying this to what transition asked. Atheists are actively anti-monotheistic.

I see you follow the silly religion in which atheism is misidentified as a religion.

transition said:

>Who was the first prominent person who was openly an atheist?

what would be needed to answer that question, I suppose it would require a fairly strict definition of atheist maybe, the person (the example atheist) would need self-declare or self-identify as an atheist, which all seems straightforward enough

not sure about the openly requirements, i’d expect there could be more than one way to be openly atheist without going about explicitly telling people that’s what you are

I mean there could be a lot of prominent people that never spoke any words or wrote anything like I deny the existence of Gods or whatever, not one explicit word writ or utterance that way, yet much else of their behavior might strongly indicate unbelief

presumably a true atheist would be a mix of behaviors indicating atheist conviction, you wouldn’t rely on them just saying so

anyway i’m stuck for a moment wondering what it is to be openly atheist

you mean overtly self-declared, explicitly declared, prominently declared, I guess, worded, stated in words

I think you are over-thinking it.

If someone was an atheist, but for whatever reason they never said so, or they did say so but it was never recorded, then there would be no way for us to know about it.

The only atheists we can know about are those who have said so, and their statement has been recorded.

Bubblecar said:

mollwollfumble said:

transition said:

>Who was the first prominent person who was openly an atheist?

what would be needed to answer that question, I suppose it would require a fairly strict definition of atheist maybe, the person (the example atheist) would need self-declare or self-identify as an atheist, which all seems straightforward enough

not sure about the openly requirements, i’d expect there could be more than one way to be openly atheist without going about explicitly telling people that’s what you are

I mean there could be a lot of prominent people that never spoke any words or wrote anything like I deny the existence of Gods or whatever, not one explicit word writ or utterance that way, yet much else of their behavior might strongly indicate unbelief

presumably a true atheist would be a mix of behaviors indicating atheist conviction, you wouldn’t rely on them just saying so

anyway i’m stuck for a moment wondering what it is to be openly atheist

you mean overtly self-declared, explicitly declared, prominently declared, I guess, worded, stated in words

I have no religion …
… which means that I am openly against all religions …
… including atheism and agnosticism.

Applying this to what transition asked. Atheists are actively anti-monotheistic.

I see you follow the silly religion in which atheism is misidentified as a religion.

> I think you are over-thinking it.

Yes. I’m over-thinking it.

But there are few things worse than a collection of atheists trying to one-up each other in saying how bad monotheistic religions are.

mollwollfumble said:

transition said:

>Who was the first prominent person who was openly an atheist?

what would be needed to answer that question, I suppose it would require a fairly strict definition of atheist maybe, the person (the example atheist) would need self-declare or self-identify as an atheist, which all seems straightforward enough

not sure about the openly requirements, i’d expect there could be more than one way to be openly atheist without going about explicitly telling people that’s what you are

I mean there could be a lot of prominent people that never spoke any words or wrote anything like I deny the existence of Gods or whatever, not one explicit word writ or utterance that way, yet much else of their behavior might strongly indicate unbelief

presumably a true atheist would be a mix of behaviors indicating atheist conviction, you wouldn’t rely on them just saying so

anyway i’m stuck for a moment wondering what it is to be openly atheist

you mean overtly self-declared, explicitly declared, prominently declared, I guess, worded, stated in words

I have no religion …
… which means that I am openly against all religions …
… including atheism and agnosticism.

Applying this to what transition asked. Atheists are actively anti-monotheistic.

Do you also not have the hobby of not collecting stamps.

Being an atheist means that on balance you don’t think any of the hypothesised gods are likely to actually exist. That’s all.

There is no requirement to be active about it, or just to exclude monotheism.

mollwollfumble said:

Bubblecar said:

mollwollfumble said:

I have no religion …
… which means that I am openly against all religions …
… including atheism and agnosticism.

Applying this to what transition asked. Atheists are actively anti-monotheistic.

I see you follow the silly religion in which atheism is misidentified as a religion.

> I think you are over-thinking it.

Yes. I’m over-thinking it.

But there are few things worse than a collection of atheists trying to one-up each other in saying how bad monotheistic religions are.

That was a reply to transition.

But there are a great many things worse than a collection of atheists trying to one-up each other in saying how bad monotheistic religions are.

And so far in this thread no-one has even started that.

> there are a great many things worse than a collection of atheists trying to one-up each other in saying how bad

It’s a moaning contest. The person who moans most is considered the winner.
If we had that on the forum, I’d leave.

mollwollfumble said:

> there are a great many things worse than a collection of atheists trying to one-up each other in saying how bad

It’s a moaning contest. The person who moans most is considered the winner.
If we had that on the forum, I’d leave.

You’re the only moaning as far as I can tell.

And for truly champion moaning, it’s very hard to beat the religious lobbyists.

mollwollfumble said:

> there are a great many things worse than a collection of atheists trying to one-up each other in saying how bad

It’s a moaning contest. The person who moans most is considered the winner.
If we had that on the forum, I’d leave.

Can you name a single group of people who don’t indulge in that sort of thing from time to time?

Other than the above average thinkers at this forum of course?

Bubblecar said:

mollwollfumble said:

> there are a great many things worse than a collection of atheists trying to one-up each other in saying how bad

It’s a moaning contest. The person who moans most is considered the winner.
If we had that on the forum, I’d leave.

You’re the only moaning as far as I can tell.

And for truly champion moaning, it’s very hard to beat the religious lobbyists.

well, when you’re being persecuted I think you have every right to moan.

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

> there are a great many things worse than a collection of atheists trying to one-up each other in saying how bad

It’s a moaning contest. The person who moans most is considered the winner.
If we had that on the forum, I’d leave.

Can you name a single group of people who don’t indulge in that sort of thing from time to time?

Other than the above average thinkers at this forum of course?

I think we are such excellent moaners that our moanings comes across as reasonable conversation.

JudgeMental said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

> there are a great many things worse than a collection of atheists trying to one-up each other in saying how bad

It’s a moaning contest. The person who moans most is considered the winner.
If we had that on the forum, I’d leave.

Can you name a single group of people who don’t indulge in that sort of thing from time to time?

Other than the above average thinkers at this forum of course?

I think we are such excellent moaners that our moanings comes across as reasonable conversation.

sometimes it’s mowin’

So on SBS they’ve got some soldiers trying to build a Roman bridge.
They are in full camouflage with steel helmets on as if they might come under fire at any time and then they said they had four says to build it and not much time left, as if PWM’s going to swallow any of this wankery bullshit.
It’s aimed at a target audience of simple minded people of lower cast not intellectuals like us so I turned it off.

Peak Warming Man said:

So on SBS they’ve got some soldiers trying to build a Roman bridge.
They are in full camouflage with steel helmets on as if they might come under fire at any time and then they said they had four says to build it and not much time left, as if PWM’s going to swallow any of this wankery bullshit.
It’s aimed at a target audience of simple minded people of lower cast not intellectuals like us so I turned it off.

And some of the Romans were atheists
dusts hands. *

Peak Warming Man said:

So on SBS they’ve got some soldiers trying to build a Roman bridge.
They are in full camouflage with steel helmets on as if they might come under fire at any time and then they said they had four says to build it and not much time left, as if PWM’s going to swallow any of this wankery bullshit.
It’s aimed at a target audience of simple minded people of lower cast not intellectuals like us so I turned it off.

I know right. if they had had the dialogue in Latin it would of been more believable.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

>Who was the first prominent person who was openly an atheist?

what would be needed to answer that question, I suppose it would require a fairly strict definition of atheist maybe, the person (the example atheist) would need self-declare or self-identify as an atheist, which all seems straightforward enough

not sure about the openly requirements, i’d expect there could be more than one way to be openly atheist without going about explicitly telling people that’s what you are

I mean there could be a lot of prominent people that never spoke any words or wrote anything like I deny the existence of Gods or whatever, not one explicit word writ or utterance that way, yet much else of their behavior might strongly indicate unbelief

presumably a true atheist would be a mix of behaviors indicating atheist conviction, you wouldn’t rely on them just saying so

anyway i’m stuck for a moment wondering what it is to be openly atheist

you mean overtly self-declared, explicitly declared, prominently declared, I guess, worded, stated in words

I think you are over-thinking it.

If someone was an atheist, but for whatever reason they never said so, or they did say so but it was never recorded, then there would be no way for us to know about it.

The only atheists we can know about are those who have said so, and their statement has been recorded.

>If someone was an atheist, but for whatever reason they never said so, or they did say so but it was never recorded, then there would be no way for us to know about it.

yeah i’m just having troubles with assumptions is all

I sort of had an idea you wouldn’t go just on what someone said, the words, I mean evangelists say all sorts, people don’t just form and hold opinions based on what they say

I could declare myself an atheist, but i’d be party to defining it, defining atheist, and I have moments I lapse, like ideas about the entire universe is in a laboratory, and our ideas of scales, that the universe is really vast, may not be how it is from an elsewhere

what about atheists who support organised religions

SCIENCE said:

what about atheists who support organised religions

What about ‘em?

SCIENCE said:

what about atheists who support organised religions

He’s out the back having a smoke with Watto.

party_pants said:

SCIENCE said:

what about atheists who support organised religions

He’s out the back having a smoke with Watto.

Hope they’re not putting their butts in the koi pond?

JudgeMental said:

party_pants said:

SCIENCE said:

what about atheists who support organised religions

He’s out the back having a smoke with Watto.

Hope they’re not putting their butts in the koi pond?

I hope not, but you can’t trust these heathens, no moral standard etc.

for what it’s worth, heresy interests me, Einstein in some ways might be thought of as a heretic, had heretical ideas, leanings that way perhaps, evident in his social philosophy

something like people are incapable of forming opinions contrary the prejudices of their social environment, not verbatim, be the gist of it in there maybe, if my recollection didn’t completely torture the original idea

we might want to know more about them as well

SCIENCE said:

we might want to know more about them as well

OK, suppose so.

I wonder how common that is.

(If we are still talking about atheists who support organised religion).

drop this here, read it way back, found it interesting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

we might want to know more about them as well

OK, suppose so.

I wonder how common that is.

(If we are still talking about atheists who support organised religion).

There are/were probably a lot of them. Personally atheist but they see organised religion as being a useful tool for whatever ulterior motive they might have. Like politicians, for example.

… or paedo bishops.

party_pants said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

we might want to know more about them as well

OK, suppose so.

I wonder how common that is.

(If we are still talking about atheists who support organised religion).

There are/were probably a lot of them. Personally atheist but they see organised religion as being a useful tool for whatever ulterior motive they might have. Like politicians, for example.

… or paedo bishops.

see we feel a bit like Arts here about this, the motives of the characters is of some passing interest

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

> there are a great many things worse than a collection of atheists trying to one-up each other in saying how bad

It’s a moaning contest. The person who moans most is considered the winner.
If we had that on the forum, I’d leave.

Can you name a single group of people who don’t indulge in that sort of thing from time to time?

Other than the above average thinkers at this forum of course?

Who are they then? ;)

buffy said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

> there are a great many things worse than a collection of atheists trying to one-up each other in saying how bad

It’s a moaning contest. The person who moans most is considered the winner.
If we had that on the forum, I’d leave.

Can you name a single group of people who don’t indulge in that sort of thing from time to time?

Other than the above average thinkers at this forum of course?

Who are they then? ;)

All of us of course :)

interesting read imo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
“Definitions of atheism also vary in the degree of consideration a person must put to the idea of gods to be considered an atheist. Atheism is commonly defined as the simple absence of belief that any deities exist. This broad definition would include newborns and other people who have not been exposed to theistic ideas. As far back as 1772, Baron d’Holbach said that “All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God.” Similarly, George H. Smith suggested that: “The man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. This category would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist.” Implicit atheism is “the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it” and explicit atheism is the conscious rejection of belief. For the purposes of his paper on “philosophical atheism”, Ernest Nagel contested including the mere absence of theistic belief as a type of atheism. Graham Oppy classifies as innocents those who never considered the question because they lack any understanding of what a god is. According to Oppy, these could be one-month-old babies, humans with severe traumatic brain injuries, or patients with advanced dementia”

it might also be argued an infant is a native supernaturalist

the arrival of a newborn makes a mother, for example, among other possible arguments

transition said:

interesting read imo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
“Definitions of atheism also vary in the degree of consideration a person must put to the idea of gods to be considered an atheist. Atheism is commonly defined as the simple absence of belief that any deities exist. This broad definition would include newborns and other people who have not been exposed to theistic ideas. As far back as 1772, Baron d’Holbach said that “All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God.” Similarly, George H. Smith suggested that: “The man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. This category would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist.” Implicit atheism is “the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it” and explicit atheism is the conscious rejection of belief. For the purposes of his paper on “philosophical atheism”, Ernest Nagel contested including the mere absence of theistic belief as a type of atheism. Graham Oppy classifies as innocents those who never considered the question because they lack any understanding of what a god is. According to Oppy, these could be one-month-old babies, humans with severe traumatic brain injuries, or patients with advanced dementia”

it might also be argued an infant is a native supernaturalist

the arrival of a newborn makes a mother, for example, among other possible arguments

How many atheists are actually antitheists

Cymek said:

transition said:

interesting read imo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
“Definitions of atheism also vary in the degree of consideration a person must put to the idea of gods to be considered an atheist. Atheism is commonly defined as the simple absence of belief that any deities exist. This broad definition would include newborns and other people who have not been exposed to theistic ideas. As far back as 1772, Baron d’Holbach said that “All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God.” Similarly, George H. Smith suggested that: “The man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. This category would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist.” Implicit atheism is “the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it” and explicit atheism is the conscious rejection of belief. For the purposes of his paper on “philosophical atheism”, Ernest Nagel contested including the mere absence of theistic belief as a type of atheism. Graham Oppy classifies as innocents those who never considered the question because they lack any understanding of what a god is. According to Oppy, these could be one-month-old babies, humans with severe traumatic brain injuries, or patients with advanced dementia”

it might also be argued an infant is a native supernaturalist

the arrival of a newborn makes a mother, for example, among other possible arguments

How many atheists are actually antitheists

depends how you define them, the range of what qualifies, and what you might be able to dig out psychologically and put a reliable framework on, and it could be that it changes over time, the dynamic changes, the force of ideas and feelings, you couldn’t entirely go on what was self-reported of inner workings, of beliefs etc, but it’d go some way toward it maybe

many things evolve from some sort of conflict, just mental work regard contradictions it could be

there’s a neutral form or type of atheism I reckon, and many atheists that qualify as antitheist would rather perhaps not be the latter, they’d rather settle on neutrality (of mental states, equilibrium), rather than be opposed, so historically there’s always been some tensions, which I guess settle in an individuals head, internal, but some of it could be the result of poverty of metaphysics from both sides, ideas (ideology) gets employed, or deployed to tidy up soft reality, artificially, so my point is both sides can be hostile toward soft reality

say put hard-nosed physicalists on one end of a spectrum, materialists whatever want call them, they can be hostile toward soft reality, and on the other end religious-inclined people can also be hostile toward soft reality

transition said:

say put hard-nosed physicalists on one end of a spectrum, materialists whatever want call them, they can be hostile toward soft reality, and on the other end religious-inclined people can also be hostile toward soft reality

It’s not a 1D spectrum.

Still, a 1D spectrum is better than an either/or I suppose.

Reading more about Thomas Paine, he definitely wasn’t an atheist. He described himself as a deist, and was scornful of atheists, but still more anti all the established religions.

It also seems he was far more influential than I realised.

I’ll blame my English schooling for my lack of knowledge of his activities and writings.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

say put hard-nosed physicalists on one end of a spectrum, materialists whatever want call them, they can be hostile toward soft reality, and on the other end religious-inclined people can also be hostile toward soft reality

It’s not a 1D spectrum.

Still, a 1D spectrum is better than an either/or I suppose.

Reading more about Thomas Paine, he definitely wasn’t an atheist. He described himself as a deist, and was scornful of atheists, but still more anti all the established religions.

It also seems he was far more influential than I realised.

I’ll blame my English schooling for my lack of knowledge of his activities and writings.

reading the wiki page about Thomas Paine

re what you quoted, notice I said a spectrum, not the spectrum, it was entirely an example to give an idea of the ideological struggle over soft reality, a way to think about it, and relevant even to this day

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

say put hard-nosed physicalists on one end of a spectrum, materialists whatever want call them, they can be hostile toward soft reality, and on the other end religious-inclined people can also be hostile toward soft reality

It’s not a 1D spectrum.

Still, a 1D spectrum is better than an either/or I suppose.

Reading more about Thomas Paine, he definitely wasn’t an atheist. He described himself as a deist, and was scornful of atheists, but still more anti all the established religions.

It also seems he was far more influential than I realised.

I’ll blame my English schooling for my lack of knowledge of his activities and writings.

reading the wiki page about Thomas Paine

re what you quoted, notice I said a spectrum, not the spectrum, it was entirely an example to give an idea of the ideological struggle over soft reality, a way to think about it, and relevant even to this day

OK, but my point is that a rationalist perspective does not exclude what you are calling a “soft reality”, indeed I think it many cases it requires consideration of soft reality, so putting “hard-nosed physicalists” at one end and religious-inclined at the other may be misleading.

It might be worth your while looking at the Wikipedia entries for Theism, Atheism, and stuff around the bloke who coined the term “Theist” (1600s), as well as the information about the first people who used the term “Atheist” to describe themselves (1700s).

Previously, “Athiest” was a long-time pejorative word rooted in Classical Greek.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

It’s not a 1D spectrum.

Still, a 1D spectrum is better than an either/or I suppose.

Reading more about Thomas Paine, he definitely wasn’t an atheist. He described himself as a deist, and was scornful of atheists, but still more anti all the established religions.

It also seems he was far more influential than I realised.

I’ll blame my English schooling for my lack of knowledge of his activities and writings.

reading the wiki page about Thomas Paine

re what you quoted, notice I said a spectrum, not the spectrum, it was entirely an example to give an idea of the ideological struggle over soft reality, a way to think about it, and relevant even to this day

OK, but my point is that a rationalist perspective does not exclude what you are calling a “soft reality”, indeed I think it many cases it requires consideration of soft reality, so putting “hard-nosed physicalists” at one end and religious-inclined at the other may be misleading.

put in a paragraph along with the concept of soft reality it’s a very effective intellectual provocation, a starting point, a philosophical torture device

Michael V said:

It might be worth your while looking at the Wikipedia entries for Theism, Atheism, and stuff around the bloke who coined the term “Theist” (1600s), as well as the information about the first people who used the term “Atheist” to describe themselves (1700s).

Previously, “Athiest” was a long-time pejorative word rooted in Classical Greek.

Yes. It’s a woman’s pejorative.

Oh, Mr V. YHM.

Woodie said:

Michael V said:

It might be worth your while looking at the Wikipedia entries for Theism, Atheism, and stuff around the bloke who coined the term “Theist” (1600s), as well as the information about the first people who used the term “Atheist” to describe themselves (1700s).

Previously, “Athiest” was a long-time pejorative word rooted in Classical Greek.

Yes. It’s a woman’s pejorative.

Oh, Mr V. YHM.

Oooh la la.

Got it thanks.

Sounds excellent to me. I’ll check things with Mrs V in a while (she’s cake-making with strict instructions not to be disturbed). I’ll get back to you.

>OK, but my point is that a rationalist perspective does not exclude what you are calling a “soft reality”, indeed I think it many cases it requires consideration of soft reality, so putting “hard-nosed physicalists” at one end and religious-inclined at the other may be misleading

yeah you’re probably right

I guess contemplating the laws of nature might generate ideas about what if it wasn’t exactly this or that, but slightly different, or opposite, that sort of thing, part of theorizing, hypothesizing, whatever