Published by The first historical mention of atheism is through the Clandestine Manuscripts, which were published in the mid-17th century. These documents were written and distributed anonymously. At this time, atheism was actually considered to be a mental illness, as any scientific theories for existence were strongly censored, and of course, very elementary.
It wasn’t until over 100 years later that there was a specific name attached to atheism. When Paul-Henri Thiry, a French-German philosopher, published D’Holbach’s System of Nature it was the first text flaunted as being atheistic. In his work, he openly stated that religion obstructed human progress, and that all of existence could be explained scientifically. This work is the closest thing to a Bible that atheists have.
By the 19th century, many widely acclaimed philosophers took atheism to new heights. While earlier, most philosophers had disputed theism, these men worked under the presumption that there was no God. It’s an important distinction, and it comes through clearly in their work. Men like Marx, Nietzsche, and Huxley published many volumes of philosophical work, many touching on aspects of theism that at this time, still made most uncomfortable.
In fact, it would be very easy to attribute these 19th century philosophers for the intensity of atheism’s growth in recent times. You can’t enter a college campus without seeing a poster of one of these men. And they’ve helped generate some of our most quotable quotes. They even helped inspire some of the greatest writers of the 20th century.
And then you have Che Guevara, a communist and an atheist. I have two questions I want you to honestly consider before reading on. Do you know who he is? Then why do you have a poster and two Che-shirts? (If this does not apply to you, just consider the sentiment.)
This is the real problem: the brief history of atheism you’ve just read is more than most “atheists” know themselves.
It’s a shame that the chance atheism has to be taken seriously as an organized religion (perhaps achieving a capital A!) is all but naught due to the ignorance of the majority of it’s supporters. A belief system based on science and logical decision-making could do a lot to benefit mankind; but how can a system based on such be taken seriously by the theists of the world when the most vocal group of followers don’t understand what they’re flouting?
It is “internet-chic” to not believe in God. And that needs to change for any modern-day atheist scholar to be truly taken seriously.
disclaimer: the writer is agnostic
Having fun yet? For more great reads, check out:
Backlash to Capitalism Part One: Indie Music
And on a lighter note: How to Chug a Beer
Interesting, ive always been interested in atheism and its teachings.
Hey
I do not have time right now, but I read a part and it looks great.
I will take some time later to read it ^^
You’ve got it all wrong.
The very idea that atheism is, or ever intends to be, a religion is misinformation spread by the so-called “Internet-chic.” The real goal of the so-called atheist movement — the goal of speaking out and proclaiming oneself as an atheist — is to secure a constituency and to stop being ignored by the government. Perhaps you’ve heard the the saying, “herding cats.” That’s the goal.
Just analyze the Christian trends in the United States, and you’ll realize why it’s not only desirable, but necessary, for atheists and freethinkers to organize like they have been. It has zero to do with any desire to make it a “capital-A” religion…
The author seems to have his own misunderstanding of atheism. All atheism means is the lack of belief in a god or gods. That’s all there is to it. There is a movement of non-believers to organize for the sake of recognition, but that doesn’t make it a religion. Saying atheism is a religion is like saying that not collecting stamps is a hobby. After all, how could you base a religion on only a common lack of belief?
Which is why the “groups” put together to help promote the lack of belief is so absurd. To use your own example, would you start a club devoted to not collecting stamps?
Another thought. Knowledge of the history of atheism is not necessary for someone to be a well-informed member of the reality-based community. There are fantastic sources of information on atheism and related ideas from many respected experts. Scientific thinking and a scientific treatment of evidence are prime paths to atheistic conclusions, and one of the basic principles of modern science is that newer information is almost always better than old.
Also, if you think the leading voices of atheism don’t understand the very ideas they are advocating, you either aren’t looking to the right people or you have misunderstood them. But I invite you to provide evidence of leading atheists who don’t understand atheism.
I would definitely start a group for people who don’t collect stamps if there was a general cultural animosity for such people, if stamp collectors enjoyed what I thought was unfair privilege, if non-collectors were considered un-electable to public office, or if stamp collectors often said publicly that people who don’t collect stamps couldn’t possibly be moral human beings.
@Guffin Mopes: I often object to the exclusiveness of atheist groups because there are theists who share our common goal, but that’s a different story…
Either way, you’re missing the point! Atheist groups are only “atheist groups” because they all happen to share the nonbelief in any god. The real objective of the groups are the common interest of suppressing and ultimately destroying religious influence in government, ensuring that nonbelievers are a recognized constituency, and restoring our nation to the secular principles upon which it was based before the Christian zealots hijacked them.
If atheists and secularists were recognized as a voting bloc and catered to on the same level that Christians are — instead of being vilified the way they have been for the past eight years or more — I guarantee you that there would be no organized atheist groups. The fact is, not many atheists care that they’re atheist. The groups are formed out of necessity to achieve a desired end.
The groups are not so much non-god and anti-religion as they are pro-freedom, but I often find that being pro-freedom and anti-religion walk hand in hand.
All people deserve religious freedom- even the freedom to have no religion. What I don’t like is that many atheist groups sound just like fundamentalist religious groups: I’m right, you’re wrong and let’s have no discussion about it.
Is the self-righteous zeal of an atheist any better for society than that of a polygamist Mormon?
You’ve started an interesting discussion, here, Guffin Mopes.
@Stephanie Moore: You’re just playing with words, now, and such an argument has no real meaning. Here… The long winded version of what I’m trying to say.
Sorry for the double post, but apparently HTML links don’t work…
http://poyt.net/index.php/hcf/opinionated-rants/organized-atheism-as-religion-hardly
Great article and good way to start dialogue. I have a question. Why do people of any belief think it is necessary to become active in government policy in order to be heard? It almost seems that people use the government to shove their beliefs down your throat.
Wow Archangel, I am absolutely flattered. I read your entry, and the posts following, and I am very happy to see the effect my writing has had on you.
I would like to clarify and add a bit of a background regarding my being agnostic:
I have never been to a church in my life. I was raised in a family that couldn’t be described as atheist, but only because theology was a non-issue. I was never confronted with a religious issue in my life until I was told that Santa Claus had nothing to do with Christmas.
I decided around 15 to be “atheist.” It was cool at the time.
But in my humble opinion, it’s absolutely absurd to decide either way. To be-lieve or not to be-lieve.
Thanks again for the ego boost.
And smoothe1, your comment actually got me thinking. Thanks for sharing a clearly less popular point of view.
@Guffin Mopes: Always happy to have a positive effect.
In all honesty, I’m relatively new to the ‘blogging scene and find it rather entertaining, so certainly don’t take offense to anything I say. I hold strong positions, and will argue them to the pain, but it’s all in good fun.
“But in my humble opinion, it’s absolutely absurd to decide either way. To be-lieve or not to be-lieve.”
You’re absolutely correct, but we all know that. Quite frankly, I imagine you’re on the same page as most atheists. As some like to say, “agnostic in theory, atheist in practice.”
Can’t believe I got away with a humble opinion..
Cheers, though. No offense taken. I knew this would be controversial going into it.
Also, thanks for the kind words.