Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Ancient history suggests that atheism is as natural to humans as religion
Collapse
X
-
Ancient history suggests that atheism is as natural to humans as religion
Blog: Atheism and the City
If your whole worldview rests on a particular claim being true, you damn well better have evidence for it. You should have tons of evidence.Tags: None
-
Since I never believed in "Religion as a default setting," This does not disturb me at all.Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?
Comment
-
"What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer
"... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen
Comment
-
Whitmarsh himself is an atheist and a secular humanist, so while ultimately it comes down to the arguments for his case, it's important to understand where he's approaching the subject from. It seems like a couple of his main points is that arguments for atheism are not new (ALL of them have been repeated before), and that atheism itself is not a modern invention.
What I find peculiar is that, as far back as I remember looking into the subject, historians (of no particular religious or non-religious persuasion) have repeated over and over again that the sort of atheism that existed in the ancient world (and specifically the ancient Greek and Roman world) was not at all the sort of atheism we imagine today. I don't know how many times I've heard that the Psalm "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'" did not apply to actual atheist atheists, because the concept of atheism that we think of today did not exist in that period. Or that when the Romans accused Christians of "atheism" they obviously didn't really mean the utter and complete lack of belief in any gods. Or that Epicureans, though they sometimes sounded like atheists, were not really atheists as we know it. Their culture wouldn't allow for it. So to have a new work come out and say, "no, that's not at all correct" is interesting.
Originally posted by Jedidiah View PostSince I never believed in "Religion as a default setting," This does not disturb me at all.
That leads to another point I find interesting. I remember when the theory initially popped up that religious belief was based on some sort of default wiring, it was used by some atheists as an argument against Christianity. Basically the argument boiled down to the idea that faith wasn't something freely chosen, it was evolved into our psyche (or something of that nature). Apologists who went along with philosophers like Plantinga seemed okay with this, because of his view that belief in God is properly basic. The idea sort of meshed with the philosophy. Now it's sort of like, whoa whoa whoa, maybe we have to rethink this a bit...
Either way, I'm interested in what he has to say to make his case, and what other historians and social science scholars think about it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostWhitmarsh himself is an atheist and a secular humanist, so while ultimately it comes down to the arguments for his case, it's important to understand where he's approaching the subject from. It seems like a couple of his main points is that arguments for atheism are not new (ALL of them have been repeated before), and that atheism itself is not a modern invention.
What I find peculiar is that, as far back as I remember looking into the subject, historians (of no particular religious or non-religious persuasion) have repeated over and over again that the sort of atheism that existed in the ancient world (and specifically the ancient Greek and Roman world) was not at all the sort of atheism we imagine today. I don't know how many times I've heard that the Psalm "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'" did not apply to actual atheist atheists, because the concept of atheism that we think of today did not exist in that period. Or that when the Romans accused Christians of "atheism" they obviously didn't really mean the utter and complete lack of belief in any gods. Or that Epicureans, though they sometimes sounded like atheists, were not really atheists as we know it. Their culture wouldn't allow for it. So to have a new work come out and say, "no, that's not at all correct" is interesting.
That leads to another point I find interesting. I remember when the theory initially popped up that religious belief was based on some sort of default wiring, it was used by some atheists as an argument against Christianity. Basically the argument boiled down to the idea that faith wasn't something freely chosen, it was evolved into our psyche (or something of that nature). Apologists who went along with philosophers like Plantinga seemed okay with this, because of his view that belief in God is properly basic. The idea sort of meshed with the philosophy. Now it's sort of like, whoa whoa whoa, maybe we have to rethink this a bit...
Either way, I'm interested in what he has to say to make his case, and what other historians and social science scholars think about it.Blog: Atheism and the City
If your whole worldview rests on a particular claim being true, you damn well better have evidence for it. You should have tons of evidence.
Comment
-
Originally posted by The Thinker View PostInteresting. I'm an atheist and I've always thought religion/belief in god was probably the default setting. Would you say that the epicurians were really just polydeists? I.e. They believed in many gods that never interfered with human's and nature.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostWhat I find peculiar is that, as far back as I remember looking into the subject, historians (of no particular religious or non-religious persuasion) have repeated over and over again that the sort of atheism that existed in the ancient world (and specifically the ancient Greek and Roman world) was not at all the sort of atheism we imagine today. I don't know how many times I've heard that the Psalm "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'" did not apply to actual atheist atheists, because the concept of atheism that we think of today did not exist in that period. Or that when the Romans accused Christians of "atheism" they obviously didn't really mean the utter and complete lack of belief in any gods. Or that Epicureans, though they sometimes sounded like atheists, were not really atheists as we know it. Their culture wouldn't allow for it. So to have a new work come out and say, "no, that's not at all correct" is interesting.
I'm also very interested to see what Whitmarsh brings to the table, in this regard.
That leads to another point I find interesting. I remember when the theory initially popped up that religious belief was based on some sort of default wiring, it was used by some atheists as an argument against Christianity. Basically the argument boiled down to the idea that faith wasn't something freely chosen, it was evolved into our psyche (or something of that nature). Apologists who went along with philosophers like Plantinga seemed okay with this, because of his view that belief in God is properly basic. The idea sort of meshed with the philosophy. Now it's sort of like, whoa whoa whoa, maybe we have to rethink this a bit..."[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
--Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostYeah. As far as I can tell, epicureans were essentially the deists of their day.Blog: Atheism and the City
If your whole worldview rests on a particular claim being true, you damn well better have evidence for it. You should have tons of evidence.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostWhitmarsh himself is an atheist and a secular humanist, so while ultimately it comes down to the arguments for his case, it's important to understand where he's approaching the subject from. It seems like a couple of his main points is that arguments for atheism are not new (ALL of them have been repeated before), and that atheism itself is not a modern invention.
What I find peculiar is that, as far back as I remember looking into the subject, historians (of no particular religious or non-religious persuasion) have repeated over and over again that the sort of atheism that existed in the ancient world (and specifically the ancient Greek and Roman world) was not at all the sort of atheism we imagine today. I don't know how many times I've heard that the Psalm "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'" did not apply to actual atheist atheists, because the concept of atheism that we think of today did not exist in that period. Or that when the Romans accused Christians of "atheism" they obviously didn't really mean the utter and complete lack of belief in any gods. Or that Epicureans, though they sometimes sounded like atheists, were not really atheists as we know it. Their culture wouldn't allow for it. So to have a new work come out and say, "no, that's not at all correct" is interesting.
That leads to another point I find interesting. I remember when the theory initially popped up that religious belief was based on some sort of default wiring, it was used by some atheists as an argument against Christianity. Basically the argument boiled down to the idea that faith wasn't something freely chosen, it was evolved into our psyche (or something of that nature). Apologists who went along with philosophers like Plantinga seemed okay with this, because of his view that belief in God is properly basic. The idea sort of meshed with the philosophy. Now it's sort of like, whoa whoa whoa, maybe we have to rethink this a bit...
Either way, I'm interested in what he has to say to make his case, and what other historians and social science scholars think about it.Last edited by shunyadragon; 02-20-2016, 11:26 AM.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostIt would be bazzario that Romans whould accuse Christians of being atheists. Roman and Greek philosophers understood what atheism was, the belief that Gods do not exist, such as the philosophy of Lucretius, who believed specifically in Philosophical Naturalism or in other words atheism. The Romans accused the Christians of believing and worshiping a false God and rejecting the Roman Gods. This, my friend are facts of history.Breaking news: Early Christians were impious atheists . . . in the eyes of some angry Greeks and Romans, that is. . . . One such remembrance in the form of a story related in a letter from one Christian group to others is the Martyrdom of Polycarp (written in the decades following Polycarp’s death in the 160s CE). It is here that we find the explicit charge of atheism. The angry crowds shout out “away with the atheists!” in reference to the Christians. And, when Polycarp is brought before the Roman governor (proconsul) of Asia for final trial, Polycarp turns the accusation on his accusers (something more than “I know you are but what am I” is going on):
“Therefore, when he was brought before him, the proconsul asked if he were Polycarp. And when he confessed that he was, the proconsul tried to persuade him to recant saying, ‘Have respect for your age,’ and other such thngs as they are accustomed to say: ‘Swear by the Genius [guardian spirit] of Caesar; repent, say, ‘Away with the atheists!’ So Polycarp solemnly looked at the whole crowd of lawless heathen who were in the stadium, motioned toward them with his hand, and then (groaning as he looked up to heaven) said, ‘Away with the atheists!'” (Mart. Poly. 9.2; trans. by J.B. Lightfoot and J.R. Harmer and revised by Michael W. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992]).
Similar charges of “atheism” and “impiety” were brought against Christians in Lyons in France in the 170s CE (see H. Musiurillo, Acts of the Christian Martyrs [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972], 64-65). The perception of early Christians as atheists was not uncommon. - Philip Harland, Associate Professor of Humanities with a specialization in Religious and Social Life in the Roman Empire, York University, Toronto
There's also, of course, Athenagoras' (C.133-190) apology "A Plea for the Christians", which attempted to refute the charge of atheism against the early church: Three things are alleged against us: atheism, Thyestean feasts, Œdipodean intercourse. He then goes chapter after chapter explaining how Christians are not atheists: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0205.htm (chapters 3-14).
In the Roman world, the accusation had more to do with the lack of public worship than anything. Judaism was largely able to get around this for being such an old religion, and in the ancient world, anything that was considered old was good. But Christianity was seen as an upstart split from Judaism, and so looked upon with suspicion.
I'm surprised at your objection shunya. This is all uncontroversial, relatively well known stuff. I find it a bit ironic that you imply that you know something about "facts of history", and didn't seem to know this.Last edited by Adrift; 02-20-2016, 01:37 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostBy the way, Lucretius was your standard Epicurean. He believed in the existence of gods, he simply didn't think they had any interaction with the known world.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
|
39 responses
185 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by whag
Yesterday, 03:32 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
|
21 responses
132 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 03-21-2024, 12:15 PM | ||
Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
|
80 responses
428 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Yesterday, 12:33 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
|
45 responses
305 views
1 like
|
Last Post 03-17-2024, 07:19 AM | ||
Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
|
406 responses
2,517 views
2 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Yesterday, 05:49 PM
|
Comment