I dunno, I would venture to say that everything is interdependent of everything else within the history of ideas. Unless you're of the persuasion that real, divine inspiration can occur, where something totally new cuts through the clouds... — Noble Dust

The question is really what meaningful interdependence do these ideas have (in my mind or in history)? We could probably find a common cognitive predecessor between ancient Greek stoicism and modern hipsterdom, but I don't expect the connection to necessarily mean much.

I tentatively agree with this concept and don't consider it to be particularity atheistic. But all of that said with some caveats as well. — Noble Dust

It's not particularly atheistic, but if you want to find a shared contributor between atheism, secularism, and humanism, that would be it.

The direct cause of (my) atheism isn't an idea upon which it is founded, but rather a failure of the ideas and arguments upon which theism is founded.

I am not a Nietzsche expert (The Gay Science has been traveling around with me in my backpack for some time now, waiting to be read), but it seems to me, from reading a lot about Nietzsche, that it's often forgotten that he actually said "God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers?" It doesn't seem like it was a triumphant atheistic statement of liberation. — Noble Dust

Why should the failure of theism causing moral quakes be considered a triumph for atheism? Remember, atheism isn't a set of beliefs, nor is it a "team". If theists share something in common because they believe in X, atheists don't necessarily share anything in common at all beyond lacking belief in X. Secular progressive morals and ideas were the eventual triumph, the death of god was it's beginning.

Perhaps, but post-modernism also was not beneficial to religion (Christianity, generally, in the west), either. I grew up with the notion that subjectivity and objectivity can't be reconciled to one another, and that objectivity always trumps subjectivity, thanks to a 40-years-late Evangelical obsession with fighting ever so valiantly against the notion of "subjective truth"....

...But that's just why post-modernism was beneficial to atheism. Atheism, like any worldview, requires a rigorous (or robust, as you say) critique of itself, if it's to continue to be a viable view for people. Why do you think Christian theology has survived for the past 2,000 years? Veracity. Indeed, atheism and Christianity both equally needed the challenge of post-modernism. Post-modernism, for all it's pastiche, panache and bullshit, is hugely a positive force in the evolution of human consciousness. It's an apophatic evolution; a negative evolution. The next step is to rid ourselves of it's shell with grateful hearts. — Noble Dust

Remember to separate secular humanism out from atheism here, as the former is the world view while the latter is in most cases a lack of world view. Perhaps post-modernist doubt can benefit secular humanist thought structure by forcing it to become more robust, but doubt applied to atheism has nowhere to go but to recede from the very language it is framed in (theological non-cognitivism). A theist might expect that doubt applied to lack of belief should lead to positive belief, but such a double negative of doubt is something else entirely...

But Stalinist Russia, and to some extent, Hitler's Germany were atheistic political endeavors, the disasters of which informed the disillusionment of the post-modern movement. Hell, even the soft-religiosity of the American nuclear family contributed to this disillusionment, and probably just as profoundly. I'm not specifically accusing atheism of spawning post-modernism, I'm trying to suggest that all sorts of things, including atheism and religiosity (the nuclear family, for instance), enabled post-modernism. I'm no post-modernist myself, but I often think it gets a bad rap for how unintelligible it is. But it's actually a movement that makes utter perfect logical sense, given the direction the world has moved in within the past 100 years. Unintelligibility was the next logical step of the competing strands of thought that met after the 2nd world war ended, and ended with such an existential swan song (or so it seemed). And the unintelligibility of "fake news" is the perfect logical next step. It aligns perfectly with the unintelligibility of post-modernism. Fake news doesn't miss a beat; rather, it was the next moment for us; it was obvious. — Noble Dust

You're drawing comparisons that use very broad conceptualizations. Stalinist Russia and Hitler's Germany hardly represent atheism to any extent. Hitler's Germany was Christian (not that they were driven by it), and Stalin's Russia was driven by bloody internal oppression in the name of communist ideals (in the name of, but not based on the ideals of). It's fair to link a decline in religiosity to atheism, but atheism founded on an empirical rejection of theist evidence (a scientific attitude) is precisely what post-modernists inherently reject. Cultural relativism appears as the moral result of post-modernism, which is quite far from secular humanism.

Fake news creates an air of unintelligibility but it's different than the post-modern variety: one is outright deception creating doubt in specific facts while the other is based on a rejection of reason. It's a product of social media and the internet, not post-modernism.

I don't see a grudge as being morally praiseworthy in any context. A grudge suggests harm done to one party by another, thus eliciting the grudge. The proper, moral way to deal with harm is not to perpetuate the harmful act itself through lambasting and lampooning (a sort of retaliation that places the harm back on the perpetrator; thus, a form of the perpetuation of the bondage to "The Other"; a form of oppression in it's own right). I'm not wise enough to say exactly how grudges should be dealt with, but I can at least see far enough ahead (and reference my own experience) to intuit how they shouldn't be dealt with. Of course, I hold my own personal grudges, I just don't hold one against the actual Christian teachings that I grew up with. — Noble Dust

Well by grudge what I mean is that if I hold a particular person to hold an immoral belief or position (especially when they think it's moral), then I attack their position. The grudge is shorthand for moral condemnation on my part. Ridicule, which is almost always a far lesser harm than the harm of the position I'm attacking, is only the tassel on the spear. When I hear someone say "we should carpet bomb the middle east" I actually think it's worthwhile to yank down their emotional, intellectual, and moral pants, especially where others can see. It's a learning experience for the observers, and a rehabilitative one for the sorry bastards who crumble at the sight of their own reflection.

This sounds more like a projection of your own experience unto the idea. I personally have had the opposite experience; I've found deeper and more meaningful spiritual concepts through the abandonment of the strict religious environment I grew up in. — Noble Dust

It was Nietzsche's projection first, but losing religion isn't the same as having god die. Until you lose your willingness to entertain (tentatively believe in) a spiritual notion of god, and have it be the basis for your existential/moral views, the old coot is still kickin. It sounds as if you have an expanded conception of god, not a dead one.

But what value do those real things have? How can value be predicated within the realm of the value itself? The value of currency, for instance, is (or was) predicated on the value of gold or silver, or whatever, not on the value of the paper that the money itself is made of. And now, we live in a world where paper money has no referent, which I think is analogous to the idea of an atheistic worldview with no spiritual referent. So again, it comes down to either spirituality or nihilism, with no room for anything in between. A meaningful atheism based on robust concepts of pleasure and pain is in this context analogous to the currency we currently use: paper printed by the government that has no actual value in and of itself; it's value is descended from former value, and not predicated on actual value. — Noble Dust

Pain and pleasure have intrinsic value: eat a chocolate bar or drop a T.V on your foot if you require demonstration of this. Emotional pain and pleasure have values as well. You're saying that pain and pleasure are fiat currency, but they're actually the base units of physical, psychological, and emotional well-being.

Even with American fiat, it's value is based on people's willingness to trade it for labor and commodities, and the value of those labor and commodities is determined by the amount of pain and pleasure (to put it roughly) they represent/enable. Everything humans do is about satiating our internal drives toward whichever specific goal comes into focus, and we choose goals based on what we think can offer physical, intellectual, and emotional pleasure (or avoid pain).

Where and when do you cash in your spiritual promissory notes for real value? Are your spiritual beliefs not of intrinsic value (with intellectual and emotional components)?

Why not travel between the two altitudes? — Noble Dust

Once you've been to the top of so many towers, you've already seen a majority of the peaks; and clouds are just clouds: pretty and without function.

Yes, and the towers to heaven I scrutinize include the towers of atheists like yourself. — Noble Dust

Enter my mud hut: It boasts livability!

It doesn't wash away easily even though it's made of mud, but It's really small. I only have room for some basic principles like "observations contain data pertaining to the real world" and "I want to avoid excessive discomfort as a goal" and "cooperation is almost always universally profitable toward avoiding discomfort". I've got no room for any intellectual shenanigans of any kind in here, so I welcome your inspection!

So far in my life, my enjoyment of getting lost has been more aesthetic than scientific. I'm not concerned with being lost for the sake of finding scientific proofs that have veracity; I'm more concerned with the state of lostness. I'm a poet more than a philosopher, and I mean that honestly, not pretentiously. — Noble Dust

I can't fully imagine why you value being lost unless it stems from a deep desire to find your own way, and if so you might eventually find you need something sharp to cut through the underbrush. Empiricism is one such sharp implement.

The question is really what meaningful interdependence do these ideas have (in my mind or in history)? We could probably find a common cognitive predecessor between ancient Greek stoicism and modern hipsterdom, but I don't expect the connection to necessarily mean much. — VagabondSpectre

Well, maybe i shouldn't say "everything is interdependent of everything else"; that suggested historical connections that exist outside of time. Rather, something more like "History is real: ideas form a linear thread that describes the history of ideas." It's actually a very simple idea.

If theists share something in common because they believe in X, atheists don't necessarily share anything in common at all beyond lacking belief in X. — VagabondSpectre

This essentially amounts to positive and negative belief, which are poles I consider equal, so I don't see any veracity in your argument here. That's really what I've been trying to argue against all along against your views, in this context. Actually, I'm not even sure anymore why this even matters. Basically, you're insisting on the absolute apophatic nature of atheism as it's given, and I'm saying "yeah, but so what? An apophatic belief assumes a cataphatic belief." So, tied into this position is an assumption that apophatic belief is not an evolution of cataphatic belief, just a side of a larger form of belief. So that would mean atheism and theism are sides of a coin, not linear phases (cataphatic to apophatic). Given all that, I do place some emphasis on apophatic belief in general, which may cast an ironic light on our discussion in general.

Remember to separate secular humanism out from atheism here, as the former is the world view while the latter is in most cases a lack of world view. — VagabondSpectre

Is this really the case in general, or just the case for someone like yourself who takes such pains to make these distinctions? And if the latter, how much do the distinctions matter within an atheist (sorry, a secular humanist..?) worldview?

but doubt applied to atheism has nowhere to go but to recede from the very language it is framed in (theological non-cognitivism). — VagabondSpectre

No, no. Doubt applied to atheism could lead to theism. Or pantheism, for that matter. Or a more profound atheism. Surely this is obvious. Doubt just means questioning what you know to be true, in a philosophical context. Lack of doubt leads to fundamentalism, always. You're a smart cookie; don't fall prey to this tendency.

Stalinist Russia and Hitler's Germany hardly represent atheism to any extent. — VagabondSpectre

But they represent arguably the first instance of atheistic philosophy taking on the world stage in an epochal context. This isn't to say that atheistic philosophy can't try again and become more robust.

(in the name of, but not based on the ideals of) — VagabondSpectre

What's the difference?

Cultural relativism appears as the moral result of post-modernism, which is quite far from secular humanism. — VagabondSpectre

This is a fair point.

Fake news creates an air of unintelligibility but it's different than the post-modern variety: one is outright deception creating doubt in specific facts while the other is based on a rejection of reason. It's a product of social media and the internet, not post-modernism. — VagabondSpectre

To my own point, I honestly can't tell which part of this sentence signifies fake news, and which part signifies post-modernism.

Ridicule, which is almost always a far lesser harm than the harm of the position I'm attacking, is only the tassel on the spear. — VagabondSpectre

Ridicule should be reserved for intimate human relationships. If, for instance, you find yourself ridiculing a philosophy forum member, I'd advise you to consider what you're doing before you act. And, as much as I dislike Ted Cruz as much as you do, I would even say you should think twice before ridiculing a politician who is not a personal acquaintance of yours. Ridicule within the context of an online forum or the media's portrayal of a political figure that is fed to you is ultimately just projection and caricature, respectively. There are already too many crusaders who feel themselves to be uniquely enlightened who are clogging the airwaves with their ridicule of the Ted Cruz's and the Obama's of the world. We could do with less ridicule and more positive language; more positive philosophy; more positive spirituality; more positive religion, more positive atheism.

It sounds as if you have an expanded conception of god, not a dead one. — VagabondSpectre

I suppose I'll take that as a compliment. I certainly hope my view of God is a self-generated expansion of what exists.

Pain and pleasure have intrinsic value: eat a chocolate bar or drop a T.V on your foot if you require demonstration of this. — VagabondSpectre

But the intrinsic value here is essentially survival, or physical well-being, neither of which I count to be foundational stases of Meaning; at best only descriptions of what meaning is. The pain of the TV on the foot and the pleasure of chocolate are descriptions of physical states, and not signifiers of Meaning. There's no referent as to why a TV on the foot or a chocolate bar are good or bad, other than the subjective five senses; and on top of that, the TV on the foot could be a masochistic pleasure, and chocolate could be repulsive (as it is to me; I detest sweets on a purely physiological level. A high level of sugars makes me literally gag). On top of this, I bring back my argument about suicide. There is a strong argument to be made (purely on the prevalence of suicide alone, without even looking up stats), that there is a state of the human mind in which death is more reasonable than life. Let me repeat: A state in which death is more reasonable than life. Clinical depression, for instance, is related to this; i.e. a state in which not only negative emotions, but irrational negative feelings and views about the world dominate the cognitive function of a human person, without reference to the reality of that person's subjective position within society; the depressive state essentially creates an alternate reality in which the person lives. This is, in a sick way, one of the grand tropes of the human person: the ability to end one's own life voluntarily. It surely requires a certain level and depth of cognition to reach the phase where this is possible. These are all states in which your simple philosophy of "pleasures vs. pain" holds no ground; this is your proverbial Wittgensteinian ice where your simple proposition slips and falls; cannot remain upright.

Where and when do you cash in your spiritual promissory notes for real value? — VagabondSpectre

Nowhere physically; and at no particular point in time. And there's no promise of any payment. Spiritual value is primary. So none of this analogy works in any way.

Once you've been to the top of so many towers, you've already seen a majority of the peaks; and clouds are just clouds: pretty and without function. — VagabondSpectre

But maybe you missed the moment when the clouds part and the sun shines through? Or maybe the stars? (Just drop it, I can do this all day, and it doesn't actually prove any point for either of us. I'll just keep doing it for the sheer fun).

Enter my mud hut: It boasts livability! — VagabondSpectre

Ah! I too live in a mud hut, and I too am living!

I'm not sure how to interface with your analogy, because I don't feel I'm living in either a mud-hut, or an ivory tower. I think I grew up in the tower, spent some time in the mud-hut, and am now a gipsy, roaming abroad. What my final home will be is not of much concern to me right now. Perhaps I have none.

Maybe you should call your mud hut an igloo? A mud hut will definitely wash away easily, despite your admonitions that it won't. An igloo can withstand the cold of a God-less world! It's just your style!

I only have room for some basic principles like "observations contain data pertaining to the real world" and "I want to avoid excessive discomfort as a goal" and "cooperation is almost always universally profitable toward avoiding discomfort". I've got no room for any intellectual shenanigans of any kind in here, so I welcome your inspection! — VagabondSpectre

You may have only room for those three guests, but they could just as easily decide to leave, and I could easily recommend new guests for you! Guests who would give a different turn to your mud-hut social life. (See? I really can do this all day. I'll take it to the point of ad absurdum purely for my own entertainment).

I can't fully imagine why you value being lost unless it stems from a deep desire to find your own way, and if so you might eventually find you need something sharp to cut through the underbrush. Empiricism is one such sharp implement. — VagabondSpectre

This is indeed the reason for my value of lostness. Empiricism is indeed a sharp implement, but I'm less concerned with using it to cut through the underbrush; I'm more concerned with how these various instruments might help me make a fire; maybe even a village.

A portion of your OP was posted on The Philosophy Forum Facebook page. Congratulations and Thank you for your contribution!

This essentially amounts to positive and negative belief, which are poles I consider equal, so I don't see any veracity in your argument here. — Noble Dust

There's a difference between belief (in existence or non-existence) and lack of belief.

You keep referring to the atheist worldviews and atheist philosophy, but they don't exist. An atheist world view is whatever world view an atheist happens to hold, which is limited only to anything other than "believes god exists". Atheist philosophy is any philosophy not founded on belief in god.

That's really what I've been trying to argue against all along against your views, in this context. Actually, I'm not even sure anymore why this even matters. Basically, you're insisting on the absolute apophatic nature of atheism as it's given, and I'm saying "yeah, but so what? An apophatic belief assumes a cataphatic belief." So, tied into this position is an assumption that apophatic belief is not an evolution of cataphatic belief, just a side of a larger form of belief. So that would mean atheism and theism are sides of a coin, not linear phases (cataphatic to apophatic). Given all that, I do place some emphasis on apophatic belief in general, which may cast an ironic light on our discussion in general. — Noble Dust

Atheism isn't apophatic in nature because it doesn't claim to gain any knowledge about god through negation. Rejecting arguments, evidence, and reasoning for god's existence is not the same as claiming to know something about god through negation; it's claiming to know nothing about god: it's lacking belief. An absence of evidence for god is not evidence of the absence of god.

I have no atheist beliefs... Only lack of theistic beliefs, which makes me therefore an atheist... Why am I an atheist? Because of my rejections of theistic beliefs and my possession of agnostic beliefs (which pertain to the knowability of god, not whether or not I therefore believe).

Is this really the case in general, or just the case for someone like yourself who takes such pains to make these distinctions? And if the latter, how much do the distinctions matter within an atheist (sorry, a secular humanist..?) worldview? — Noble Dust

It's really the case in general, but the distinctions generally only matter when we're trying to explain what we believe, don't believe, and why, to other people.

No, no. Doubt applied to atheism could lead to theism. Or pantheism, for that matter. Or a more profound atheism. Surely this is obvious. Doubt just means questioning what you know to be true, in a philosophical context. Lack of doubt leads to fundamentalism, always. You're a smart cookie; don't fall prey to this tendency. — Noble Dust

For me and most atheists atheism is the statement that "I don't have knowledge or belief of or in any god(s)". How do I doubt that? I do have knowledge? Post-modernism is a rejection of knowledge, which is why the post-modernist expression of atheism usually takes the form of theological non-cognitivism.

But they represent arguably the first instance of atheistic philosophy taking on the world stage in an epochal context. This isn't to say that atheistic philosophy can't try again and become more robust. — Noble Dust

Give me a single solitary example, just one tenet will do, of so called "atheistic philosophy" that represents Stalin's Russia or Hitler's Germany. Stalin wasn't a secular humanist, and Hitler was a Christian along with his entire army: they weren't informed by atheism.

If secular humanism is what you were referring to though, then if you happen to live in a western first world country just take a look around you. The secular society you enjoy with modern laws informed by progressive moral standards is the product that rationally follows from my robust worldview. So far it's been more successful than any other set of basic principles in human history.

What's the difference? — Noble Dust

One is zealotry without understanding and the other would be an actual implementation of the ideals which founded the bolshevik party.

Ridicule should be reserved for intimate human relationships. If, for instance, you find yourself ridiculing a philosophy forum member, I'd advise you to consider what you're doing before you act. And, as much as I dislike Ted Cruz as much as you do, I would even say you should think twice before ridiculing a politician who is not a personal acquaintance of yours. Ridicule within the context of an online forum or the media's portrayal of a political figure that is fed to you is ultimately just projection and caricature, respectively. There are already too many crusaders who feel themselves to be uniquely enlightened who are clogging the airwaves with their ridicule of the Ted Cruz's and the Obama's of the world. We could do with less ridicule and more positive language; more positive philosophy; more positive spirituality; more positive religion, more positive atheism. — Noble Dust

I don't ridicule people, I ridicule ideas and beliefs, but with that said, there's a balance between ridicule and the salient criticisms contained within the ridicule which makes it more or less effective.

If I make fun of Trump's hands, then I'm getting nowhere and persuading nobody worth persuading. If I make fun of Trump's business failures and utter lack of experience, that's something else entirely. Not all ridicule is warranted, in my opinion it must contain valid criticism and be for a purpose. Lampooning corrupt politicians is highly honorable in this tradition.

Nowhere physically; and at no particular point in time. And there's no promise of any payment. Spiritual value is primary. So none of this analogy works in any way. — Noble Dust

So for me pain and pleasure are primary, and for you spiritual value is primary. Are you sure that spiritual value isn't a composite of emotional and intellectual pleasures?

But maybe you missed the moment when the clouds part and the sun shines through? Or maybe the stars? (Just drop it, I can do this all day, and it doesn't actually prove any point for either of us. I'll just keep doing it for the sheer fun). — Noble Dust

I'm still trying to explain my points to you, proving them comes afterward. My argument for atheism comes in the form of rebuke and rejection of theistic arguments. My argument for empiricism and comes in the form of science (generally). My argument for humanism comes in the form of existential value derived from pain and pleasure as a primary values. My argument for secularism is a combination of all three of these things: It's observable and demonstrable that secular societies better promote desirable moral values (we can discuss these) more effectively than theocracies.

Unless you've got proof of god up your sleeve my atheism is not at risk. Unless you've got the key to ultimate spiritual pleasure or some game changing primary value above and beyond pain and pleasure, my humanist values are beyond reproach. Unless you've got a vision for a society not partially founded on spiritual freedom (including freedom from spirituality; secularism) then I'm not about to erect any altars.

Ah! I too live in a mud hut, and I too am living!

I'm not sure how to interface with your analogy, because I don't feel I'm living in either a mud-hut, or an ivory tower. I think I grew up in the tower, spent some time in the mud-hut, and am now a gipsy, roaming abroad. What my final home will be is not of much concern to me right now. Perhaps I have none.

Maybe you should call your mud hut an igloo? A mud hut will definitely wash away easily, despite your admonitions that it won't. An igloo can withstand the cold of a God-less world! It's just your style! — Noble Dust

Metaphor and analogy are somewhere in-between poetry and prose, I figured it would help you to interface with my ideas since there is some persistent confusion.

So let's say you're a wanderer and run with that. If bad weather comes where do you take shelter as a gypsy? Do you camp out in the nearest shelter? To dispense with the metaphor, do you have any consistent foundation for your moral beliefs?

You may have only room for those three guests, but they could just as easily decide to leave, and I could easily recommend new guests for you! Guests who would give a different turn to your mud-hut social life. (See? I really can do this all day. I'll take it to the point of ad absurdum purely for my own entertainment). — Noble Dust

I was hoping that you would attack these positions so I could demonstrate how robust they are. Which additional positions would you recommend which wouldn't fit in with them?

This is how I suspect religion refuses to die despite overwhelming odds: Young people are recruited easily as they're impressionable. Those who do this soon lose their religion (their bullshitometer eventually exposes religious lies). So, we have now an middle-aged group of atheists but their children have become theists. These theist youths then start families, their children, again are enrolled into religion. The parents eventually lose their faith but the children haven't lost theirs. The process repeats, religion continues to thrive or, at the very least, remains stable in the population despite atheism being so compelling an idea.

Medicine makes people a little less dependent on the opium of religion than they were, say 100 years ago — Mongrel

Religion was already in decline (in the west) beginning with the Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment on the order of two to five hundred years ago. I do think that sure, region is a very powerful force and historically speaking, yes I would also predict it to prevail in the end.

But form my limited perspective I would predict that in so doing, religion will either:
a)
Change drastically for having to directly and successfully addressed the substantial shift in values and human understanding and character that continues to occur over the modern period, thanks to thinkers like Kant and Nietzsche, and developments like modern Science. (I don't think this could be done without a new figure or series of figures like Jesus, Buddha, or Mohammad)
b)
Horribly misunderstand the current philosophical situation and basically put a very functional band-aid on our situation, likely leading to a highly religious period of stagnation and probably some form of oppression, or at best, delaying the true confrontation of the problems of values, subjectivity and freedom by a number of centuries.

This is all conjecture though, take it with a grain of salt.

So what's your prediction? — Mongrel

Current ideologies and indeed promoted with similar ardor as with traditional religion, that is true.

You have evangelists that spread the true word.

You have a lithurgy.

You have to redeem yourself, become a true believer. It's a faith issue thinly disguised in reason.

All that in various political ideologies in use today. The fact is that when the society has become more secular, the trappings of a religion work very effectively. Some people just don't notice it.

I fear we have to tread carefully in the domain of theology - its booby-trapped. Religion employs the well-proven technique of Bait (morality)-and-Switch (metaphysical mumbo jumbo).

It may be difficult to follow my non-linear thinking here, but this is why the things that have really advanced atheism are not logical arguments. It's penicillin, knowledge about cholera, vaccines, and the like. Medicine makes people a little less dependent on the opium of religion than they were, say 100 years ago when death was a pretty common feature of the average person's life year after year. — Mongrel

Boy, I even wrote a paper on that! Not published, of course.

My point was the same: People needed, it seemed to them, an external force to protect them. Danger came in many ways: disease, but not just disease: crop failure, enemy attacks, fire, flood, even meteorite hits (ask the mainstream dinosaurs) and attack by wild animals. People froze to death in the winter, and starved to death during the whole year. Lords, landlords, had absolute power over the serfs.

Obviously their only recourse was superstition, to stave off the "evil". It has been seen (not by me) since prehistoric times, the invocation of protection via prayer, sacrifice, covenants.

The spread of atheism occurred at times when less and less superstitious dogma was deemed as needd for survival. There were sporadic atheists at all times in history, but the real blow to the Church came in the time of the establishment of the first secular universities. Whenever that was. Professors were smart to recognize that the world operated on cause-effect relationships, and they eliminated the need for a deity from their weltanschauung. But people who needed to survive by avoiding natural or human-made disasters still believed in superstitions. Secular professors worked in cities, with stable income, the cities were walled so protected from enemy attacks, and there was some medical help available when needed. They felt secure, they did not need prayer. So they cast god aside.

The growing number of proletars and bourgizisaiaidfise (I can't spell French words, with a glee) came a new era of "pretend" religioosity, where people believed in some sort of creator, but they did not depend on it for too much.

This lasted into the middle of the last century, in most of Europe, or to the nineteen-twenties in Russia, where Communism obliterated religions in the main.


The true, unforced era of atheism came with the prosperity of post-war Western Europe. Bellies were full, no war, disease or pestilence. Penicillin was a saviour. Education became free, so did medicine, and so did welfare, unemployment insurance and retirement income. Life became good.

In America, according to this explanation of atheism, the lack of medicare and the proliferation of guns stop Atheism. That's why the strong resistence against gun control and against medicare. People love to stick with their ideologies, it is the strongest force of cohesion between members of the tribe, so it's the strongest social value and the strongest survival value for a community. Their common beliefs.

America is not atheist for this reason. Superstition is a major part of life, to stave off the evil that causes financial ruin via sickness that's too expensive to handle, yet one must pay for it. It can come any time, any direction; it is random. The randomness is what keeps the superstition alive. Because to fight it, you need to appeal to a god, and gods are, let's face it, fickle. They sometimes grant wishes sent to them in prayer, and sometimes they don't. It's completely random. Actually, so random that you almost could say the gods don't even listen... because they don't exist.