Tags
Language
Tags
July 2025
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
    Attention❗ To save your time, in order to download anything on this site, you must be registered 👉 HERE. If you do not have a registration yet, it is better to do it right away. ✌

    ( • )( • ) ( ͡⚆ ͜ʖ ͡⚆ ) (‿ˠ‿)
    SpicyMags.xyz

    A Short History of Atheism (Library of Modern Religion) (Repost)

    Posted By: advisors
    A Short History of Atheism (Library of Modern Religion) (Repost)

    A Short History of Atheism (Library of Modern Religion) By Gavin Hyman
    2010 | 232 Pages | ISBN: 1848851375 , 1848851367 | PDF | 2 MB


    The last few years have seen a remarkable surge of popular interest in the topic of atheism. Books about atheism by writers like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have figured prominently in bestseller lists and have attracted widespread discussion in the media. The ubiquity of public debates about atheism, especially in conscious opposition to the perceived social threat posed by faith and religion, has been startling. However, as Gavin Hyman points out, despite their prevalence and popularity, what often characterizes these debates is a lack of nuance and sophistication. They can be shrill, ignorant of the historical complexity of debates about belief, and tend to lapse into caricature. What is needed is a clear and well informed presentation of how atheistic ideas originated and developed, in order to illuminate their contemporary relevance and application. That task is what the author undertakes here. Exploring the rise of atheism as an explicit philosophical position (notably in the work of Denis Diderot), Hyman traces its development in the later ideas of Descartes, Locke, and Berkeley. Drawing also on the work of contemporary scholars like Amos Funkenstein and Michael J Buckley, the author shows that, since in recent theology the concept of God which atheists negate is changing, the triumph of its advocates may not be quite as unequivocal as Hitchens and Dawkins would have us believe.