How atheism helped create the modern world

You know that guy who keeps saying atheism is a rejection of Western Heritage and enlightenment values, and that atheists are science deniers and all that. Well, I think he reads the wrong books or lives in a hell hole several centuries behind current time.

I like this observation by Charles Bradlaugh

It is certainly a clear gain to astronomical science, that the church which tried to compel Galileo to unsay the truth has been overborne by the growing unbelief of the age, even though our little children are yet taught that Joshua made the sun . . . stand still.”

Continue reading here


About makagutu

As Onyango Makagutu I am Kenyan, as far as I am a man, I am a citizen of the world

25 thoughts on “How atheism helped create the modern world

  1. john zande says:

    Yes, the nonsense must be shared


  2. Arkenaten says:

    Where would the bible thumpers be without the technology that put their bible together?
    It’s just a miracle Gutenberg wasn’t burned at the stake! πŸ™‚


  3. Ruth says:

    If the fear of LORD is the beginning of wisdom it’s a good thing some folks decided that he shouldn’t also be the end of it.


  4. Oh, sorry to be a nuisance, but we’ve got plenty of scientists with a keen religious/spiritual interest, of all sorts and degrees, who didn’t seem obstructed in their pursuit of scientific rigour, by their beliefs…
    Religious beliefs are as much part of our development as anything else.
    Please, don’t burn our childhood at our still developing adulthood’s stake; we’ll regret it later…
    Not many of you had to leave your beliefs after nearly two decades of active ministry. Not many of you went alone through the hell of deconversion. Yet if I’ll walk condemning myself for what I’ve done, I’ll have to be my own executioner.
    On a larger scale, condemning the toddler eras of our history, doesn’t make us better, but just atheist/agnostic versions of the theistic fanaticism we rightfully condemn.
    Yes, I’ve done it, we’ve done it, but it changed, we’ve changed, I’ve changed…


    • makagutu says:

      You can’t be a nuisance here, that you know. We can disagree to agree but that isn’t a problem.
      I agree there are many scientists past and present who are deeply religious. The claim in the post I think, is that their religiosity has somehow not been a hindrance to their studies. In a way it can be said, they leave their beliefs at the door of the laboratory and pick it on their way out.


  5. shelldigger says:

    I took that quote to mean that while modern knowledge and unbelief together are making headway, people are still teaching their children 2000 year old mythology as truth.

    I could be wrong, and do not mind being wrong occaisionally, but that’s how I read it.

    I would very much disagree with this statement by LoT “Religious beliefs are as much part of our development as anything else.” This depends solely upon what family, what country, or even what region in a country you were born to. In the face of modern technology, the facts derived from such, and all of the evidence piling up, I see no further need to be poisioning children’s minds with such claptrap.

    @ LoT Congratulations on your deconversion, Being one where the process just wouldn’t take, I can’t imagine how difficult that must have been for one so deeply involved. Good for you making your way out.

    However, I would venture, the toddler era’s of our history have much to offer us. A yardstick of our development, many great minds in the past brought us out of the darkness. On the flipside many atrocities. All of which together help us understand ourselves a little better today. We need to know and understand our history, to better ourselves tomorrow.


    • makagutu says:

      Buddy, I agree there is no further use in clouding the current generation with all this.
      I think it must have been hard for a person in ministry for so many years to deconvert. And for that we must congratulate my good friend LoT and many others who became free.


      • shelldigger says:

        Absolutely. Like I said, it was easy for me, I just could not buy what they were selling. I tried for a while, but the will to remain one of independent thought, and not become a blind follower of dogma was too strong. That and the obvious hypocrisy in their ranks and the thinly veiled hate for all that was not of their particular in group pushed me away.

        For someone with so much invested, and to still be able to dig their way out, indeed requires a hearty congratulations.


  6. I have no idea what a god is. So contending that my lack of belief in such a thing makes me smarter, seems sorta dumb to me. I think it is our abandonment of the Atheist vs. Bearded Guy in the Sky, bifurcation fallacy which has advanced man. Not the jumping from one religion right into the next one as an angry reaction to the first one.

    What is a god?


  7. hehe… excellent point. πŸ™‚ And that would be tragic, as your blogsite is well done. πŸ™‚

    But the question of what god is (an ontological one), is a different question than ‘what is a god? (an epistemological one)’ The former bearing a presumption. Give me a coherent definition of god, a spaceship which can violate the laws of physics – and I have a probability of being able to come back in short order with a 100% facsimile of that definition on board with me. I would Introduce him to everyone (only gender biased in the sense of anticipating being handed a male definition to begin with). And we can ask endless questions as to whom this being is indeed. But then he would no longer be a god to us – we would know him only to be a talented life form.

    So the question is an ignostic one, rather than an ontological one. The atheist contends to know what a god is, and then a priori cite that this defined being does not exist. Two very outlandish claims of which I certainly do not hold the evidence to boast. So, to the ignostic, there is no difference between a theist and an atheist, they both define god exactly the same way, and then both make an outlandish claim about that definition.



    • makagutu says:

      Thanks for your kind words. If you have time on this blog, there are several occasions I have taken the igtheist stand in the debate about gods. The times I use atheist is for simplicity. I think the atheist hasn’t defined god. The theist defines and describes a god he thinks exists and the atheist says- show me the evidence. Until this evidence is adduced, I think their/ our position is a warranted one.


      • Agreed on the simplicity, and totally understand the equivocal use of the term. Under a hypothesized domain exclusion approach, then agnosticism, skepticism, atheism, ignosticism and tolerance are all one apparent reasonable domain. I have treated it in certain contexts in similar fashion myself. Under the scientific method however, the atheist is making a claim. One which we are not allowed to make, despite the temptation.

        If we let the theist define god first, and then we simply provide the antithetical domain framing, then we are not doing our job. We are simply reacting. And that is not science; that is a social activity.

        We are letting the theist define our gnosis on our behalf, and we are simply responding with an in-context dissent. Then following it up with the apologetics of really being an ignostic, agnostic, and tolerant when pressed hard on the flaws of the argument. In a lab team, this is called the whiner. No solutions, just kvetching about the proposed ones.

        The theist should not be defining our science (the theist is asking, and the atheist is answering, the wrong question) for us. If that is the case, then we are still doing the theist’s science. We just dissent on his conclusion.

        The ignostic contends, we must ask the right question first. In the ignostic’s world, he is leaving open the possibility that both the theist and the atheist may indeed be wrong.



We sure would love to hear your comments, compliments and thoughts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s