Atheist? No, you are not. Or are you?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-06-2016, 11:15 AM
RE: Atheist? No, you are not. Or are you?
(15-06-2016 09:23 AM)Siefert Wrote:  
(15-06-2016 08:31 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  "the older one" is a misnomer, it's one definition itself. which isn't Older, as the other definitions of atheism go back way back. It's the definition you're familar with for decades on end but it's certainly not older at all.

The term even had popularity of Romans believing christians to be Atheist and philosophical figures before were accused of Atheos in not believing or propagating it.
Thank you ClydeLee,
I defer to your better knowledge. That about Roman times was interesting. Where could one find more information on that subject?

You could try the internet.

Athenagoras’ apology, addressed to Emperor Marcus Aurelius, called the legatio pro Christianis “combats the three popular charges against Christians: atheism, incest and cannibalism.” In this work, divided into 33 books, he devotes 28 books on refuting the charge of atheism, as to illustrate the gravity. To comprehend the allegation of atheism, it needs to be understood that the Romans had a pragmatic approach to religion. Ferguson remarks that so too “atheism in the ancient world was practical, not theoretical.” In order to remain favourable to the Gods, the Romans merely had to perform religious practice correctly, regardless of any personal conviction. The people were free to hold any belief, on one condition. Nothing was demanded of new faiths except an occasional gesture of adoration to the gods and the head of state. An atheist was “someone who did not observe the traditional practice.” Not to partake in public worship, is not so much obstinacy to the virtue of obedience, but it could endanger the whole state and was seen as the equivalent of treason. Thomas Robbins pointed out that “one was converted to the intolerant faiths of Judaism and Christianity while one merely adhered to the cults of Isis, Orpheus, or Mithra.” Paying tribute to another god was no impediment for pagans who could effortlessly exchange allegiance between diverse gods, for worship was a mere adherence without any further going convictions other than a commitment towards a patron. Conversely it was more problematic for faiths without such a flexible pantheon, especially monotheists who were seen as intolerant for their repudiation to adhere to the gods of the empire. As a result monotheists were rated as atheists: “one’s own god counted for nothing if one denied everybody else’s.”

Sources:
H. R. Drobner, The Fathers of the Church: A Comprehensive Introduction, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson 2007
E. Ferguson, Church History, Volume One: From Christ to Pre-Reformation. The Rise and Growth of the Church in Its Cultural, Intellectual, and Political Context, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan 2005
R. Stark, The Rise of Christianity: A Sociologist Reconsiders History, Princeton: Princeton University Press 1996
R. MacMullen, Paganism in the Roman Empire, New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1981


https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/c...ly_called/

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
15-06-2016, 11:44 AM
RE: Atheist? No, you are not. Or are you?
Sounds to me like the OP is talking about the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. Many-worlds like the rest of the multiverse theories is unconfirmed but does have its supporters. A lot of people a lot smarter than most of us think it is a possibility.

Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.

[Image: anigrey.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-06-2016, 11:48 AM
RE: Atheist? No, you are not. Or are you?
(15-06-2016 11:44 AM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  Sounds to me like the OP is talking about the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. Many-worlds like the rest of the multiverse theories is unconfirmed but does have its supporters. A lot of people a lot smarter than most of us think it is a possibility.

That's an extremely generous interpretation of the OP's rambling. Many worlds always sounded a bit far out to me, and contentious because not really testable. But ja, let the physicists argue over that one.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2016, 01:47 AM
RE: Atheist? No, you are not. Or are you?
My Author is a colossal faggot for not making me a part of the magical land of equestria so I can be with the multi colored ponies I love so much! Seriosuly, that world is far more entertaining than this boring crap place.


Also, FUCK YOU AUTHOR! Thanks for making me a 31 year old Virgin with no life, a lot of debt and no real chance to succeed in life you fucking bastard!

FUCK THE AUTHOR!


My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2016, 04:54 PM
RE: Atheist? No, you are not. Or are you?
Delete this please.


Attached File(s) Thumbnail(s)
   

I are teh Kong erve te Mewountarns arve Abesirdieity. Al erve dem degeahns sher bert B-4 may. Ivre yarp yurndarctood zert, garve yarpelf r cerrcay. Translation: I am the Kong of the Mountains of Absurdity. All of the dragons shall bow before me. If you understood this(that^, not this) then give a Sear Key.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2016, 09:25 PM
RE: Atheist? No, you are not. Or are you?



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: