I'm a coward

This women http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/12 ... a-al-ghoul is facing the moral issue set out in this thread not a few hundred years ago but today.

Macros1980 wrote:Judging by our answers, it seems that our hypothetical medieval society would be unlikely to make it out of the dark ages. I know very little about what historical events allowed for the beginings of secularisation. I'm assuming that it had a lot to do with brave individuals standing up to the church and refusing to put up with their bullshit, though.

This is a wholly inaccurate picture of what actually happened in the transition to modernity. I know many people on this forum prize their atheism above all else, but this should not blind us to the part played in weakening the power of the Catholic church by Protestant dissenters. The flowering of the humanities in the early-modern period was inseparable from the rise of more democratic and plebeian forms of theology, which could provide the basis for radical challenges to orthodoxy in all its forms. It is notable, for instance, that the republican ideals of many parliamentarians during the English Revolution were expressed in religious terms.

It is anachronistic to suppose that radical reformers in the late middle ages needed atheists to advise them. And considering the actual course of events, it seems perverse to claim that "our hypothetical medieval society would be unlikely to make it out of the dark ages", since this is exactly what did happen.

Barry Cade wrote:This is a wholly inaccurate picture of what actually happened in the transition to modernity. I know many people on this forum prize their atheism above all else, but this should not blind us to the part played in weakening the power of the Catholic church by Protestant dissenters. The flowering of the humanities in the early-modern period was inseparable from the rise of more democratic and plebeian forms of theology, which could provide the basis for radical challenges to orthodoxy in all its forms. It is notable, for instance, that the republican ideals of many parliamentarians during the English Revolution were expressed in religious terms.

It is anachronistic to suppose that radical reformers in the late middle ages needed atheists to advise them. And considering the actual course of events, it seems perverse to claim that "our hypothetical medieval society would be unlikely to make it out of the dark ages", since this is exactly what did happen.

Yes, atheism as a movement only arised in the late 18th century, before that it simply wasn't much of an issue. And it only got serious in the 19th century.

But, i thought of this dilemma out of boredom, and it is astonishing that so many people responded. Of course what if-history isn't very intellectual, it's more for the fun of it.

you could pretend to believe in it all, get to a position of authority on religious matters and then try and talk about the most rediculous passages in the bible and see if you could get everyone else to question it while not actually doing it yourself

like bringing it all down from the inside

For the sake of the discussion, I'd like to point out that an advantage that atheists have over believers, is, that they have no fear of going to hell, for pretending to believe, to avoid persecution. People of CONFLICTING faiths, have no place safe to stand. They must either please their god, or please their rulers.
Therefore, it is likely impossible to KNOW how many atheists existed in the past. It's CERTAINLY clear in our present, that MANY, especially rich and powerful people, who CLAIM to believe in various religions, are actually secret atheists. Otherwise, they would be MUCH better behaved.