I have seen this claim from you before, but do you have any sources for this. I know atheism has been around for as long as people have, but the 1800's I don't recall seeing to many of them outside of some scholarly circles.
The Twilight of Atheism by Alister McGrath is a good place to start.
regards, mikwut
Perhaps you could show your evidence( I am not saying you are wrong, but would like you to show it). I see no reason I should have to go buy a book to find out if you statement has any basis in fact.
My statement is a historical one not a trivial one. I don't think surveys provide proper evidence given the ambiguity involved, you can see religious variations increasing and decreasing and the 'other' segment increasing and decreasing and you can debate all day about what it means. Today for example pentacostal Christianity is rapidly growing in Africa and S. America, but atheism in 1960 predicted the death of religion by now, that there would just be few muddled cults existing on the fringes was suppose to be the state of religion today. You can read the Death of God Time Magazine issue online. Have you heard of Altizer and the Death of God movement that was debated on TV shows, the New York Times and other media in the 60s? Do you think that was mere hubris, or was there actual strength in its adherents for that to make the cover of Time magazine and to boldly make that prediction?
Do you see anything comparable in the last 50-100 years or more to the French Revolution? Rather the opposite of walls coming down and churches reopening and missionaries entering into former communist countries.
The definition of 'atheism' is also difficult to pinpoint, classical atheists did not self identify as "without belief" they stated a clear belief that there is no God. Many claim they are atheists but are really deists or agnostics or hybrids of the same. Regardless the atheist of today is at least more open minded than his forebears. A resurgence in the philosophy of religion has occurred in the last 50 years when the opposite was suppose to have happened.
Do you presently see in the new atheist movement anything historically comparable to the writings (which were highly read) of Feuerbach, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Freud, or Marx?
The historical examples are too many to list.
my regards, mikwut
All communication relies, to a noticeable extent on evoking knowledge that we cannot tell, all our knowledge of mental processes, like feelings or conscious intellectual activities, is based on a knowledge which we cannot tell. -Michael Polanyi
"Why are you afraid, have you still no faith?" Mark 4:40
My statement is a historical one not a trivial one. I don't think surveys provide proper evidence given the ambiguity involved, you can see religious variations increasing and decreasing and the 'other' segment increasing and decreasing and you can debate all day about what it means. Today for example pentacostal Christianity is rapidly growing in Africa and S. America, but atheism in 1960 predicted the death of religion by now, that there would just be few muddled cults existing on the fringes was suppose to be the state of religion today. You can read the Death of God Time Magazine issue online. Have you heard of Altizer and the Death of God movement that was debated on TV shows, the New York Times and other media in the 60s? Do you think that was mere hubris, or was there actual strength in its adherents for that to make the cover of Time magazine and to boldly make that prediction?
Do you see anything comparable in the last 50-100 years or more to the French Revolution? Rather the opposite of walls coming down and churches reopening and missionaries entering into former communist countries.
The definition of 'atheism' is also difficult to pinpoint, classical atheists did not self identify as "without belief" they stated a clear belief that there is no God. Many claim they are atheists but are really deists or agnostics or hybrids of the same. Regardless the atheist of today is at least more open minded than his forebears. A resurgence in the philosophy of religion has occurred in the last 50 years when the opposite was suppose to have happened.
Do you presently see in the new atheist movement anything historically comparable to the writings (which were highly read) of Feuerbach, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Freud, or Marx?
The historical examples are too many to list.
my regards, mikwut
So another-words you don't really know. Communism is a bad example, since how much non-belief really existed. How many were able to openly state their beliefs after Communism fell. I don't really see any quantifiable evidence here, but simple assertions. I do agree that it is a complex issue, although not that important.
but atheism in 1960 predicted the death of religion by now,
Not in the Mormon sense of that word. But from the historical examples which I am educated on I feel confident in what I wrote.
Communism is a bad example, since how much non-belief really existed.
I have clearly stated the ambiguity of the question, it exists in many examples.
I don't really see any quantifiable evidence here, but simple assertions.
History is not mere assertion.
I do agree that it is a complex issue, although not that important.
Agreed.
You mean some atheists predicted it.
Sure.
regards, mikwut
All communication relies, to a noticeable extent on evoking knowledge that we cannot tell, all our knowledge of mental processes, like feelings or conscious intellectual activities, is based on a knowledge which we cannot tell. -Michael Polanyi
"Why are you afraid, have you still no faith?" Mark 4:40
mikwut wrote:Not in the Mormon sense of that word. But from the historical examples which I am educated on I feel confident in what I wrote.
History is not mere assertion.
Unless you can provide quantifiable evidence, you don't really know in any way other then very subjective ways. This of course can be heavily influenced by your bias and world view.
Western Atheism: A Short History by James Thrower, page 77:
There you go, Authors writing about Atheists and why they exist before the 1800s. Something they wouldn't do if they were just some isolated academic persons.
MrStakhanovite wrote: There you go, Authors writing about Atheists and why they exist before the 1800s. Something they wouldn't do if they were just some isolated academic persons.
I wasn't meaning that there was not atheists outside of scholarly circles, but was wondering if he had evidence to support his claim that atheists as a percentage have been greater in the past then say the last number of decades. Apparently he only has he reading of history to go by.
Last edited by Guest on Tue Feb 07, 2012 4:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
MrStakhanovite wrote:As a non-believer, I don’t get why faith has to be explained in such unflattering terms. Even if that is what faith was to you, that is still not how many (if not most) believers would characterize it.
So then why should this be offensive to those who don't define faith this way? If it doesn't apply, why can't they just move on?
Maybe because it does apply (at least, partially), and they don't want to admit it? Maybe? Just maybe?
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Some Schmo wrote:So then why should this be offensive to those who don't define faith this way? If it doesn't apply, why can't they just move on?
Because I’m tired of being mistaken for some crusading dawkfag like you becoming a poster boy for village atheism. Same reason Aristotle Smith gets frustrated with guys like Ray Comfort and people who parrot him saying stupid crap, I’ve got my web toed fundies like you who want to set up an echo chamber where we all sit around and massage prostates because another poster with extra chromosomes posted a stupid picture with words on it.
