How dangereous was beeing an atheist in medieval times?

>>1562084
Where? There are poems from caliphates in medieval times that openly defy god and idea of god.

>>1562100
mostly in medieval europe

>>1562084
Descartes is as far as you could go and only in the name of skepticism for philosophy, and he believed in god.

>>1562120
No he didn't, the whole God stuff is crap he put on to avoid the inquisition lol

File: 1470944122377.png (692KB, 736x668px) Image search: [Google]

692KB, 736x668px

>>1562084
> How dangereous was beeing an atheist in medieval times?
Hardy at all. Christendom had room for a plurality of voices and opinions.
"Muh inquisition" is largely a fabrication of modern progressives, something like 700 people total were executed, and the vast majority of those were co-convicted for secular offences like murder and rape.

>>1563113
Not quite. Gods existance was seen as granted and being an atheist would earn you a title as a dumbass or crazy guy at most. Being a heretic or heathen on the other hand would be much worse.

>>1563087
Is there any proof to support this claim?

>>1562084
The problem is that the medieval world isn't the same as today.
Nowaday, it appears normal to be an atheist. But back in the medieval times, everyone believed in God. Most of the scientists were priests or monks, and tried to understand the world better to see the designs of the Higher Being. They wanted to understand the human body, the laws of physics, the mathematics, because they wanted to see how great the creation of God was. Being an atheist back in those days wasn't being smart and it was nothing to be smug about, because every great mind (And indeed, there were great minds) was completly persuaded by the existence of God, and all the miracles were believed in.

>>1563113
>Christendom had room for a plurality of voices and opinions.
Have you not read where Aquinas said that heretics should be put to death?

File: 1459906071546.jpg (46KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 850x400px

I hear it wasn't as dangerous as some people say it was.

>>1562084
>he revealed his power level to the normies
why not tell them you're a virgin as well while you're at it

>>1563207
>Aquinas is everyone in Europe from 400-1600 AD

>>1563207
Thomas of Aquinas was a medieval sperglord who kept getting triggered, attacked a roastie screaming "REEEEEE" while he was locked in a tower by his own mother, destroyed a priceless automaton because it scared him, and managed to create a huge awkward situation during a party where he was invited by the King of France, because he was angry at all the chad french lords.

None of the things I have said are exagerated or memes. They're the strict truth.
Now how can you say that Thomas of Aquinas represent all of the christian world during the Middle Ages ?

>>1563252
So are you claiming that Aquinas was an outlier on this position? Do you deny that the Catholic Church squashed several heretic groups before the Reformation?

>>1562084
Being an atheist was way less dangerous than being a heretic.

>>1563277
Why?

>>1563113
>"Muh inquisition" is largely a fabrication of modern progressives
That's a fun way to call "Protestants."

Also the Inquisition was largely after heretics. Witches, Atheists, and Non-Christians are to be handled by MISSIONARIES. Hell, they didn't even take Witches and Atheists seriously, thinking that they're either a) some superstitious bullshit or b) plain antisocial.

>>1563087
My god, are you serious?
Have you even read the meditations?
His belief in god is a key component of his philosophy.

>>1563283
>Be Atheist
"I dont believe in god."
Church: let me try to change your mind bro.
>Be Heretic
Lol Christ totally said this and your gospels are edited shams kekekeke
>WTF, HE'S DESTROYING DOCTRINE, ARREST HIM.

>>1563266
Your argument is essentially that since Aquinas was socially inept that no one agreed with him on anything, even on something like heretics deserving death, when the Church has a long history of destroying heretic groups going all the way back to the Arians. Look up the Cathars

>>1563283
Because >>1563165
Atheists were mainly seen as complete idiots who couldn't be serious. Heretics, on the other hand, converted the masses, taking them away from the flock and from the religious authorities, hence why the Pope called actions against the cathars or the fraticellis.

>>1563286
>Witches, Atheists, and Non-Christians are to be handled by MISSIONARIES
That isn't what happened to Rousseau, unless you consider Deism a Christian heresy

>>1563310
>Rousseau was born in the medieval times
>Rousseau was tracked by the Inquisition

>>1563283
Because Christianity was the foundational ideology of medievel society. It underpinned the justifications of the government, the legal code and more, and guided how they should be understood.

Anytime you challenged the interpretation of the scriptures, you challenged the interpretation of all those other things. The modern equivalent isn't mere religion for us, but ideology. It gets real worrying for the people in power when people start buying into a new ideology. It's REAL worrying when people with control over educational, economic, military or legal apparatus start subscribing to a contrary ideology.

Atheism was viewed in the middle ages not as a competing ideology, but as a semi-ignorant non-answer.

>>1563314
I know the Inquisition wasn't after him. I doubt people in Medieval times would be more tolerant of Deism than in the 1700s

>>1563338
>as a semi-ignorant non-answer.
Just realized this needs some clarification. By this, to build on the ideological metaphor, Atheism is the middle ages is in the modern day "All politicians are shit." Somewhat edgy, but not particularly worrying, compared to active ideological agitators.

>>1563354
No they weren't, because of all the answers other people have pointed at in this thread.
Atheism was just seen as complete stupidity. Meanwhile, Roman Catholicism was seen in western Europe as the foundation of everything in society. It was the foundation of the power of the Kings and of the Roman Emperor (Voltaire shitposters, fire away), it was the foundation of science (All scientists were priests), of economics, of military (Knighthood and all), of legal law. Fighting against the power of the Church was fighting against everything that built society, hence why repression was so violent against the more radical heresies (The cathars openly fought against luxuries and hated the great, expensive cathedrals used by the bishops) and why local lords were ready to apply the will of the Pope with great prejudice.

>>1563384
I am speaking about Deism, not atheism. I don't know of any cases of atheists in medieval Europe. But the way that other groups were treated that weren't christian, such as pagans and the occasional deist is a good way to see how atheists would have been treated had they existed

>>1563113
Mmmhm, care to explain why Atheists still can't be elected into office in these American states? It must have been worse in the Christian Middle Ages.
http://americanhumanist.org/hnn/details/2012-05-unelectable-atheists-us-states-that-prohibit-godless

>>1563439
> It must have been worse in the Christian Middle Ages.
History sure is easier if you just project everything backwards at a linear growth rate.

>>1562084
About as dangerous as today.

>>1563452
Do you deny that the West has become more tolerant of religious differences than it was in the middle ages?

>>1563487
He's the equivilant of an Islamist with their Islamic golden age

>>1563487
Do you deny that "more tolerant of religious differences" is a uselessly vague metric? Especially one for drawing deductive conclusions about societal practices from?

>>1563525
How is it too vague? Should I specify what I mean for you? By religious tolerance I mean the tenancy of the state to attempt to punish or inhibit people's choices if they hold different religious beliefs. This is a wide area, but that does not mean it is impossible to measure

File: 1469347539087.jpg (235KB, 460x600px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 460x600px

Depends on where you live, I guess.

Apparently towards the end of the Middle Ages, there were several Atheists.

Dante rages against them, and puts them in hell, people like Farinata degli Uberti and his friend's dad, Cavalcante Cavalcanti, whose son, Guido, was also an Atheist.

Apparently, it was openly known and not treated as a capital crime.

>>1563580
>
How is it too vague? Should I specify what I mean for you? By religious tolerance I mean the tenancy of the state to attempt to punish or inhibit people's choices if they hold different religious beliefs.
Well then no, huge swaths of Medieval Europe didn't even have a functioning state.

>>1563283
Because Atheism carries no power. When you live in a society where the church is in power, you gain nothing by denying it all together.

Heretics on the other hand sow confusion by claiming to be the true ordering of things