This book is the foundation of modern atheism. There is scarcely any argument used today by atheists against the existence of God that Feuerbach had not already discussed in this masterpiece, first published in 1841. God is an illusion; God is a delusion; God is a projection of mankind's best qualit

Nineteenth century philosopher hero who came out against hierarchies, and particularly religious hierarchies, and laid the ground for later radical thinkers such as Marx. He saw religion in distinctly anthropological terms with God and religion being our anthropomorphic projections rather than havin

One of the transition points between Hegel and Marx. Feuerbach's anti-religious strategy is to propose an "anthropological" account of religion as representing a community's idealised notion of individual human nature, whilst repudiating the theoretical excresences of christian theology. It's an arg

One of the more difficult books I've ever read, but filled with great ideas. Basically Feuerbach says that Christianity (love of Christ) should really be about love of man, and this is simply because Christ sacrificed himself becasue of this love for man. Consequently, if we don't love and care for

Man created God: here's what the German philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach affirms, in this classic, first published in 1841!

God? A product of our imagination; an 'Ideal', made up from everything we value as being admirable, besides being devoid of our own weaknesses.

This view is striking, not least bec

Hegel is easy to understand once you realize that he would agree with Peter O’Toole’s character from the 1972 movie The Ruling Class when his character is asked: ‘How do you know you're God?’, and he responds: ‘Simple. When I pray to Him, I find I am talking to myself’. Yes, there is a God but he is

From theology graduate to atheist, I'm seeing this model a lot even these days, the spark might be caused by the impossibility of finding internal answers or peace in dogma, then Feuerbach starts describing the world from finite to infinite, turning his back to Hegel's ideology. For me at least, mat

Another in the surprisingly large group of books, 'things that, although incomprehensible to people who don't understand Hegel, are read with great relish by people who don't understand Hegel because they can be used to re-affirm preexisting prejudices' (see also Marx, Kojeve, all the 'end of histor

I read this because I'm trying to get a better grasp of Hegelian thought in general, and also on the historical lineage of Marxism. I don't know how much this is going to help me in that mission so far. I think I need to read Marx's writings on Feuerbach, and the Stirner-Feuerbach exchanges to get a