Famous atheists, known historically, as "extreme atheists", along with, for some, akin clarifications of "extreme materialists" and or "extreme mechanists"; namely: Jean Meslier, Julien la Mettrie, Baron d’Holbach, Ludwig Feuerbach, in latter years, and Ludwig Buchner. |
“Matter and energy moves itself. It has no exterior mover.”— Jean Meslier (c.1720) (Ѻ)
“What is the soul, but an empty word to which no idea corresponds?”
See also: Hume-Holbach dinner partyFrench materialist philosopher Baron d’Holbach (1723-1789), and his The System of Nature: the Laws of Moral and Physical World, itself known as the “Atheist’s Bible”, is widely known as the “Newton of the atheists” (Ѻ) even cited so in history of atheism documentaries. (V|1:45) Thought difficult to find a specific citation of him as an “extreme atheist”, the following is a 2006 summary European historian Nathan Barber: [9]
“d’Holbach took Newton’s ideas about the universe operating as a clock or machine to the extreme, arguing that humans have no free will, and that forces and laws of nature governed the lives of humans, not humans themselves and certainly not god. He aggressively argued against the existence of God and even against the existence of human souls. After all, why would human machines have need for souls?”
“Feuerbach replaces theology with anthropology, he also replaces the concept of god with the concept of cooperation between people. He became an extreme atheist in his later years, as can been seen in his works.”
“The materialists Helvetius, Diderot, Lammet, then Comte, and especially Feuerbach, drove the idea of god and the notion of immortality of the soul completely out of his brain. The image of a ‘kind and graceful Christ’ disappeared.”
Extreme | More Extreme | |
vs. | ||
Ludwig Buchner (1824-1899) | Libb Thims (c.1975-) | |
A comparison of German physician-physicist Ludwig Buchner and American electrochemical engineer Libb Thims, both labeled “extreme atheists” and [gross] “materialists” and both theorists of force-matter based morality systems, shows the latter to be MORE extreme than the former, in that he not only denies god, but he also denies life and love as being defunct terms in need of terminology and concept reform. |
“The universe, that is the all, is made neither of gods nor of men, but ever has been and ever will be an eternal living fire, kindling and extinguishing in destined measure.”— Heraclitus (500BC), opening quote to Buchner’s 1884 Force and Matter: Principles of the Natural Order of the Universe, with a System of Morality Based Thereon
“Where there are three students of nature, there are two atheists.”— Anon (c.1850), opening quote to Buchner’s 1884 Force and Matter: Principles of the Natural Order of the Universe, with a System of Morality Based Thereon
“Just as man and woman attract one another, so oxygen attracts hydrogen, and, in loving union with it, forms water, that mighty omnipresent element, without which no life nor thought would be possible.”— Ludwig Buchner (c.1870), cited by Henry Finck (1887) as representative of “gross materialism”
“Potassium and phosphorous entertain such a violent passion for oxygen that even under water they burn—i.e. unite themselves with the beloved object.”— Ludwig Buchner (c.1870), cited by Henry Finck (1887) as representative of “gross materialism”
Extreme | Aligned-Extreme | |
vs. | ||
Ayn Rand (1905-1982) | Libb Thims (c.1975-) | |
Russian-born American philosopher Ayn Rand and American electrochemical engineer Libb Thims, both labeled as extreme atheists, seem to be aligned on most points, except on the on the question of purpose and societal organization, Rand siding with self-interest and the rights of the individual, Thims siding with reality defined by chemical thermodynamics, according to which freedom and security are governed by the competing tendencies of entropy and enthalpy. |
“In 2005, Paul Ryan professed to be a believer in the teachings of Ayn Rand, a Russian-born writer, philosopher, and extreme atheist. He stated: ‘I grew up on Ayn Rand, that’s what I tell people. You know, everybody does their soul searching, and trying to found out who they are and what they believe. You learn about yourself. I grew up reading Ayn Rand and it taught me quite a bit about who I am and what my value systems are, and what my beliefs are.”— Ron Peeples (2012), Crap: the Dirty Dozen of the Republican Party (Ѻ)
“Arrogants like Eddington, despite his achievements, are the cause as to why people like Libb Thims fall from one position to another lower position. First Libb argued that life is a defunct theory to justify the application of classical version of the second law of thermodynamics to living systems, ignoring statistical thermodynamics. Then to justify ‘life is a defunct theory’ he argues that his actions and behavior or not ‘self-controlled’ or ‘self-driven’ [see: self-motion] but are governed by external electromagnetic forces. Arrogance leads to ignorance and scientific blindness as we noted from the example of Eddington and Nobel laureate Chandra Sekhar. Libb Thims’ science is laced with extreme atheism and materialism and hence his precarious position. Science needs to be kept at equal distance and away from both atheism and theism. I can’t stop but laugh at myself when I think that I am not alive or I am not moving myself.”— DMR Sekhar (2011), “Eddington’s Psycho-Syndrome” [1]
“Libb Thims is a strong atheist, adheres to a physics-based morality, and considers himself a Goethean revolutionist.”— David Bossens (2013), Debates of the Hmolpedians [2]
“The amoral nurse might reject that he or she has a moral duty to uphold a patient’s rights. The amoral nurse would also probably claim that it does not make any sense even to speak of things like a patient’s ‘rights’ since moral language itself has no meaning. The amoralist’s position in this respect is analogous to the atheist’s rejection of certain religious terms. The extreme atheist, for example, would argue against uttering the word 'god', since it refers to nothing and therefore has no meaning. Such an atheist might also claim that there is no point in engaging in a religious debate on the existence of god, since there is just nothing there to debate. To try and debate the existence of god would be like trying to debate the existence of a ‘black cat in a darkened room when there isn’t one’ [see: black cat analogy]. The amoralist may argue in a similar way in relation to the issue of morality.”References— Megan-Jan Johnston (2011), Bioethics: a Nursing Perspective [10]