World's First Atheist Was Also Communist - Communism And Atheism Go Together From The Beginning
Sound of Trumpet
Religion
I am interested in who could be said to be the first atheist
philosopher. Did all the ancient Greek philosophical big guns believe
in gods, for example? More recently I know Hume published his atheist
stuff anonymously for fear of reprisal and recrimination but before
him the Elizabethan playwrights Christopher Marlowe and Thomas Kyd
were "accused" of atheism so it was nothing new. So how far does it go
back, especially as articulated by philosophers?
Thanks in advance for your answers.
December 1, 2008
Response from Jasper Reid on December 1, 2008
The charge of atheism was levelled against countless philosophers over
the centuries: but, historically, it usually signified nothing more
than a criticism of the established state religion and/or a heretical
view on the nature of God/gods, and not a flat denial that there was
any existent being answering to that name at all. For instance, among
ancient philosophers, Epicurus and the other classical atomists were
widely regarded as atheistic: but they really weren't. They did
postulate the existence of gods. It was just that their so-called gods
were material beings, living serene lives off in outer space, who
didn't create the universe or, frankly, do much of anything at all,
and who had absolutely no interest in mundane affairs, and
consequently weren't fit objects for our religious devotion. Later on,
Spinoza's contemporaries generally tended to regard him as an atheist,
as did those of Hobbes, and Hume, not to mention Bruno, Vanini,
Toland, and many others. But most of these figures insisted on the
existence of God. Even Hume, although he might have been less emphatic
about it than the others, did at least concede that much. Their
concern was more with the question of what this being was like, not
whether it existed at all. Spinoza's 'God', for instance, was
characterised as a non-supernatural being, who possessed neither
wisdom nor will nor providential benevolence, who was not a fit object
for our worship (although, curiously, was a fit object for our love),
and who was not really distinct from the universe at all. The common
attitude at the time (and a charge that Spinoza himself strenuously
resisted) was that a being like that simply wasn't worthy of the name
'God' at all; and, if Spinoza wasn't postulating any other God besides
that one, then he wasn't really postulating any God at all. I'm not
really familiar with the nature of the charge made against Marlowe or
Kyd, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was similar to this one,
falling into the grey area between atheism in the strict sense and
simple heresy.
I dare say that there probably were a handful of crackpots over the
centuries, who did go further by declaring explicitly that there was
no God of any kind at all. But few of these actually left a written
record of their opinions; and, perhaps more importantly, few arrived
at this conclusion via a path of genuinely philosophical investigation
(as opposed to a malicious will to outrage, or just straightforward
lunacy). The earliest figure that I know of, who was not only an
atheist in the truest sense of the term, but who also built a complete
philosophical system around this doctrine, was a Frenchman by the name
of Jean Meslier (1664-1729).
Meslier was a priest (of all things!), who lived a completely ordinary
life in a tiny French village, doing his duties in the local church.
Only then, when he died, they discovered a colossal manuscript among
his papers, of a book he'd been writing and revising for many years.
The full title of this book sums up its contents pretty well: Memoir
of thoughts and sentiments of Jean Meslier, priest of Etrépigny and
Balaives, on some of the errors and deceits in the conduct and the
government of men, wherein are to be seen clear and evident
demonstrations of the vanity and the falsity of all divinities and all
the religions of the world, to be addressed to his parishioners after
his death, and to serve them and all like them with a testimony of the
truth. This book definitely does qualify as a genuinely philosophical
treatise, discussing cutting-edge doctrines and arguments from
Fénélon, Malebranche and others along the way, and championed in its
turn (albeit only in a grossly bowdlerised version) by Voltaire. And,
in the course of it, Meslier not only develops and argues for a
materialist metaphysics that is explicitly atheistic in the fullest
possible sense, but also develops, in conjunction with this, a
communist political philosophy! Half a century before d'Holbach (who
is sometimes regarded as the first truly atheistic philosopher of the
Enlightenment), and a century and a half before Marx! Unfortunately,
Meslier's Memoir (also known as his Testament) has never been
translated into English -- which is a real pity, as it is just so
exquisitely quotable -- but here is my own rough-and-ready, unpolished
rendering of its most famous passage:
"Ah! my dear friends, if you well knew the vanity and the foolishness
of the errors in which you are kept under the pretext of religion, and
if you knew how unjustly and how disgracefully the authority is abused
which has been usurped over you, under the pretext of governing you,
you would certainly have nothing but contempt for everything that you
have been made to adore and respect, and you would have only hatred
and indignation for all of those who have abused you and who govern
you so badly and treat you so disgracefully. This reminds me of a wish
that was once made by a man who had neither knowledge nor education,
but who, according to appearances, did not lack the good sense to
judge soundly of all the detestable abuses and all the detestable
tyrannies that I am here criticising. It appeared, through his wish
and through his way of expressing his thoughts, that he saw far enough
and sufficiently penetrated into this detestable mystery of iniquity
of which I have just spoken, since he well recognised its authors and
its fomenters. He hoped that all the great men of the world, and all
of the nobility, should be hanged and strangled with the guts of the
priests. This expression will not fail to appear rude, vulgar and
shocking, but you have to admit: it is frank and artless. It is
concise, but it is expressive, since it expresses in few words
everything that people of that sort deserve." (Foreword, chapter two).
Dragonblaze
> http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/2452
>
> Religion
>
> I am interested in who could be said to be the first atheist
> philosopher.
We don't know the name of the person who originated the Indian
materialistic philosophy Lokayata/Carvaka, but since that can be
traced to 6th century BCE, that person would get my vote.
Michael Gordge
Communism and religionism are ideas founded upon the epistemology of
faith. There are communist religionists and religious communists, the
atheist communist is an accident, a coincidence and not a consequence
of any reasoned rational thought process.
MG
Meteorite Debris
Strawman argument.
--
Remove both YOUR_SHOES before replying
apatriot #1, atheist #1417,
Chief EAC prophet
Jason Gastrich prayed for me on 8 January 2009 and nothing happened.
Apatriotism Yahoo Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make
you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
Mike Jones
> Religion
>
>
> I am interested in who could be said to be the first atheist
> philosopher.
Given that many of those who make careers within systems aggressively
antagonistic about atheism and any other form of "heresy" were\are
atheistic beneath their survival\beneficial assumption of a theistic
front, you'd need to be a bit more specific.
Many philosophers were\are atheistic, as were\are many religious figures.
Did you mean "openly atheistic philosopher"? Look up "heretic" and "dead".
--
*===( http://www.400monkeys.com/God/
*===( http://principiadiscordia.com/
*===( http://www.slackware.com/
John W Kennedy
soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he
possessed was his own; but they had all things common."
To which what is there more to add, but, "He answered and said unto
them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written,
This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me."?
John F. Eldredge
The way you have quoted the texts above is misleading, making it look
like the second paragraph is directed to those who were holding their
possessions in common.
The first quotation is from Acts 2: 44-45.
> And all who believed were together and had all things in common; and
> they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as
> any had need.
But note Acts 5: 1-11.
> But a man named Ananias with his wife Sapphira sold a piece of
> property, and with his wife's knowledge he kept back some of the
> proceeds, and brought only a part and laid it at the apostles' feet.
> But Peter said, "Ananias, Why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the
> Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? While
> it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold,
> was it not at your disposal? How is it that you have contrived this
> deed in your heart? You have not lied to man but to God". When
> Ananias heard these words, he fell down and died. And great fear came
> upon all who heard of it. The young men rose and wrapped him up and
> carried him out and buried him. After an interval of about three hours
> his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. And Peter said to
> her, "Tell me whether you sold the land for so much." And she said,
> "Yes, for so much." But Peter said to her, "How is it that you have
> agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? Hark, the feet of
> those that have buried your husband are at the door, and they will
> carry you out." Immediately she fell down at his feet and died. When
> the young men came in they found her dead, and they carried her out and
> buried her beside her husband. And great fear came upon the whole
> church, and upon all who heard of these things."
Note that the punishment was for the hypocrisy of lying about what they
had done; they could have openly contributed just part of the money from
the land sale, and not been punished.
The second paragraph you quoted is from a different context, Mark 7: 5-8.
> And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him [Jesus], "Why do your
> disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders, but eat
> with hands defiled [i.e., having not gone through ritual cleansing]?"
> And he said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it
> is written, 'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is
> far from me. In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrine the
> precepts of men.' You leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the
> tradition of men." And he said to them, "You have a fine way of
> rejecting the commandment of God, in order to keep your tradition! For
> Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother', and, 'He who speaks
> ill of father or mother, let him surely die'; but you say, "If a man
> tells his father or his mother, 'What you would have gained from me is
> Corban' (that is, given to God) -- then you no longer permit him to do
> anything for his father or mother, thus making void the word of God
> through your tradition which you hand on. And many such things you do."
Again, the condemnation is for hypocrisy.
--
John F. Eldredge -- jo...@jfeldredge.com
PGP key available from http://pgp.mit.edu
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better
than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
Dan Clore
> http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/2452
>
> Religion
>
> I am interested in who could be said to be the first atheist
> philosopher.
The Buddha might be a good place to start.
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://tinyurl.com/2gcoqt
Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
shrik...@gmail.com
wrote:
> http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/2452
>
> Religion
>
> I am interested in who could be said to be the first atheist
> philosopher.
What about King Solomon, the one atheist who
got to blog in the Bible itself?
John W Kennedy
> On Sun, 15 Mar 2009 20:24:49 -0400, John W Kennedy wrote:
>
>> "And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one
>> soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he
>> possessed was his own; but they had all things common."
>>
>> To which what is there more to add, but, "He answered and said unto
>> them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written,
>> This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from
>> me."?
> The way you have quoted the texts above is misleading, making it look
> like the second paragraph is directed to those who were holding their
> possessions in common.
Not at all. It's addressed to Strumpet.
Allan Matthews
center.org says...
>
> Sound of Trumpet wrote:
> > http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/2452
> >
> > Religion
> >
> > I am interested in who could be said to be the first atheist
> > philosopher.
>
> The Buddha might be a good place to start.
Except the Buddha was not an atheist. If anything he was something of a
Deist.
[crossposting trimmed]
allan
--
allan_m...@bigfoot.com
=================================================
A monk asked Jo Ju, "What is the meaning of Zen?"
Jo Ju replied, "The cypress tree in the yard."
=================================================
shrik...@gmail.com
> In article <725p4oFnepa...@mid.individual.net>, clore@columbia-
> center.org says...
>
>
>
> > Sound of Trumpet wrote:
> > >http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/2452
>
> > > Religion
>
> > > I am interested in who could be said to be the first atheist
> > > philosopher.
>
> > The Buddha might be a good place to start.
>
> Except the Buddha was not an atheist. If anything he was something of a
> Deist.
I always saw him as a pantheist. But the
difference between a pantheist and an atheist
is mainly in one's attitude towards existence.
Catawumpus
[Acts 5]
> Note that the punishment was for the hypocrisy of lying about what they
> had done; they could have openly contributed just part of the money from
> the land sale, and not been punished.
"Not been punished" has got to be one of the least ringing
endorsements.
-- Catawumpus
Errol
> http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/2452
>
> I am interested in who could be said to be the first atheist
> philosopher. Did all the ancient Greek philosophical big guns believe
> in gods, for example? More recently I know Hume published his atheist
> stuff anonymously for fear of reprisal and recrimination but before
> him the Elizabethan playwrights Christopher Marlowe and Thomas Kyd
> were "accused" of atheism so it was nothing new. So how far does it go
> back, especially as articulated by philosophers?
Very easy really. when was the first religion?
When did the first philosopher realise that no gods were necessary?
that things worked without gods to cause rain, or assemble the clouds,
or create the heat and pressure systems to assemble the clouds
Certainly Socrates was an atheist as was Lucretuis and Epicurus.
ZerkonXXXX
> "accused" of atheism
Buddhism ?
Gene
@j39g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
> Certainly Socrates was an atheist
You have a bizarre notion of certainty.
--
"It's not like there is much that is universal among economists." -- Shawn
Wilson
Chazwin
philosophy to explain the universe.
Sadly much of their philosophy has been ruthlessly suppressed by
idiotic fools like "Sound of Trumpet" and this has set back progress
on the understanding of the universe by hundreds of years.
Aristarchus proposed that the Sun was at the centre of the universe
nearly 2000 years before Copernicus, for example.
Jon Schild
Sound of Trumpet copied and pasted:
> [lots of drivel attempting to prove that atheists have no
> capability of morality]
The first known serial killer was raised Catholic. So what?
--
Wanted dead and/or alive: Shroedinger's cat.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>
>The first known serial killer was raised Catholic. So what?
Serial killing is much older than Roman Catholicism.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison