Marcus Apathicus Posted April 1, 2007 Report Share Posted April 1, 2007 Lucretius: "Too often in time past, religion has brought forth criminal and shameful actions. ...How many evils has religion caused!" "The nature of the universe has by no means been made through divine power, seeing how great are the faults that mar it." "All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher." "Fear was the first thing on earth to make gods." "Not they who reject gods are profane, but those who accept them." "We, peopling the void air, make gods to whom we impute the ills we ought to bear." "There is no murky pit of hell awaiting anyone. ...Mind cannot arise alone without body, or apart from sinews and blood. ...You must admit, therefore, that when the body has perished, there is an end also of the spirit diffused through it. It is surely crazy to couple a mortal object with an eternal and suppose that they can work in harmony and mutually interact." Others: "It is expedient that gods should exist; since it is expedient, let us believe that they do." (Ovid) "From the moment of death onward, the body and soul feel as little as they did before birth." (Pliny the Elder) "The superstitious man wishes he did not believe in gods, as the atheist does not, but fears to disbelieve in them." (Plutarch) "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." (Seneca) "It is for the good of states that men should be deluded by religion." (Statius) Please feel free to contribute with further examples or with thoughts and opinions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeke Posted April 1, 2007 Report Share Posted April 1, 2007 Atheism in ancient Rome was practiced by the philosphers of non-religious logical sects and a select few of skeptical upper class merchants and landowners. The upper class used the various Polythestic religions of the day to enforce their rule over the mob and I personally believe that most of the Emperors saw religion as foolish but useful as a way to assert their domiance over the varried populations of the empire. Philosphies such as Stoicism and Cyncism...made mentions of the varioes deities of the day, but these deities were seen as distant and not having much of an effect on the world...so in a way these philosphies embraced atheism as their officials doctrines. The atheism of the upper class stands in stark constrast to the zealousness of the simple man; especially in rural areas where the gods and spirits of nature had a particular effect on people's lives and the phenamonons that they observed. Illiteracy perhaps had a major contributing factor to this, and the philosphies that were embraced by the urban classes of the Empire essentially stayed in those urban centers. As such Christianity was able to spread better among the Athiests in the cities then the Pagans in the country. With a more friendly breeding environment, Christianity was able to spread rapidly among questing intellectuals and povery stricken slaves alike. A final note is that....the Romans are not known for their persacuttion of atheists....as long as you showed up for the sacrifice at the temples you were considered a patriotic citizen. It didn't matter whether you believed in the rituals or not. Thus allowing for considerable freedom of thought about the functions of religion. Glory be to the gods of coarse, -Zeke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nephele Posted April 1, 2007 Report Share Posted April 1, 2007 As such Christianity was able to spread better among the Athiests in the cities then the Pagans in the country. With a more friendly breeding environment, Christianity was able to spread rapidly among questing intellectuals and povery stricken slaves alike. Hi, Zeke. I'm curious -- do you have any examples to show how early Christianity might have been more appealing in some way to those who rejected all belief in gods, than to those who believed in some gods? By that reasoning, Judaism, another monotheistic faith, should have been equally appealing to Rome's "atheists". Additionally, while I don't debate that Christianity may have had its appeal for some "questing intellectuals" and even more "poverty stricken slaves", I find it difficult to accept that the cities prior to the 4th century C.E. presented "a more friendly" breeding environment for Christianity. A breeding environment, yes, I won't dispute that, as Rome was a breeding environment for a number of foreign cults. But if Tacitus, writing during the early 2nd century C.E., is to be taken into account, then Christianity appears to have endured a less than friendly "breeding environment" in Rome: "The deadly superstition having been checked for a while, began to break out again not only throughout Judea, where this mischief first arose but also at Rome, where from all sides all things scandalous and shameful meet and become fashionable." The fact that Tacitus said that Christianity was becoming "fashionable" doesn't necessarily indicate that it was also socially acceptable or viewed with friendliness by fashion-disdaining Romans. As for actual atheism in ancient Rome... I tend to think of atheism as more of a modern-day system of thought. Those writers quoted above didn't necessarily deny the existence of their gods, and quotes may be found showing that their disdain for religion was not inspired by actual disbelief. ("Temples and statues of the gods go to ruin, nor can the gods themselves prolong their date or get reprieve from fate." -- Lucretius) But a nice collection of quotes, nevertheless, Marcus Apathicus. -- Nephele Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursus Posted April 1, 2007 Report Share Posted April 1, 2007 As for actual atheism in ancient Rome... I tend to think of atheism as more of a modern-day system of thought. Those writers quoted above didn't necessarily deny the existence of their gods, Indeed. Most Epicureans did not deny the existence of divinity - merely its active involvement in the affairs of humanity. I guess that makes them "apatheists" - people who are indifferent to the existence of the supernatural, as they believe it exerts no influence over human affairs, and consequently is not worth worrying about. I think the trend in Late Antiquity was not Atheism per se but to pantheism. What was under attack was the belief of a multiplicity of anthropomorphic gods who were tied to cities and nations, and who interceded in human affairs for the sake of offerings and sacrifices. Some people found this conception of divinity a useless superstition. The response was to dispose (more or less) with the gods of traditional mythology and conceive the universe itself as divine. The Stoics reconceived Zeus as not the head of a divine family who ruled the cosmos, but the breath of fire that animated the cosmos itself. The Neoplatonists conceived of a reality as operating at various levels, but the ultimate source of reality was the true divinity. And these groups replaced the superstitions of the common people with a more high brow superstition which they labeled as philosophy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marcus Apathicus Posted April 1, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2007 Maybe I should have said "Agnosticism in Ancient Rome" but it just wouldn't have had the same kind of impact I think Lucretius though, through his materialist atomism, comes pretty close to denying the existence of any supernatural deity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlapse Posted April 1, 2007 Report Share Posted April 1, 2007 Can it be said that all of these statements stem from Aristotle? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeke Posted April 2, 2007 Report Share Posted April 2, 2007 do you have any examples to show how early Christianity might have been more appealing in some way to those who rejected all belief in gods, than to those who believed in some gods? By that reasoning, Judaism, another monotheistic faith, should have been equally appealing to Rome's "atheists". Christianity was appealing to so called "atheists" in ancient Rome because of the fact that it is a "Love-Bombing" religion that offers a wider variety of services relating to the human physce. The Polythestic religions of ancient Rome didn't market in trying to help the invidivudal. As long as the gods were pleased with the blood of sacrifce, then the state would be prosperous and the government of Pagan Rome thought that if the state was prosperous then the people would be happy. Humans are humans and I have seen many athiests go back to being religious because they need that feeling of support. As Karl Marx said "Religion is the Opium of the people" and even non-believers need something to feel like they are not alone in this universe. It is difficult for a human being to just say... "I am alone, no magic fairy is going to help me." In the back of their mind their still hoping there is something...so the great mystery that is the human adventure will continue on after our eventual demise do to whatever illness or calamity that will eventually behallf us. The Atheists of Ancient Rome found it easier to accept a loving, caring diety then the selfish human ones that were already in place. People don't want to feel ignored, they want to be helped. Jupiter and Mars do not offer nearly as much support as the Christian God does. The lack of dogma that Polytheism has also enforced the idea among the Athiests that perhaps the whole concept of gods and goddesses was a bunch of bull* Yet the Christian God was mysterious, and was up there somewhere in the sky giving support by allowing his son to die for human sin. That concept is romantic, why wouldn't athiests see that as suppieror to the state sponsered cults of eccentric deities that were often combinded together for national purposes? Since no one ever goes into account about what this Christian God looks like or acts like...its open for more speculation, allowing for greater belief. TO THIS DAY people are still speculating Who or what god is. Paganism shuts out this idea by telling you elabrorate stories of what the gods did and how they act. The mystery is taken away...and when that mystery is gone skeptiscim developes because there is only one question left to ask..... "Is this really real?" Christians don't have to ask this question...there too busy trying to figure out what god is accually doing. On the subject of Judaism....Judaism didn't become popular because of its Nationalistic sentiments. It is a Jewish Religon, it doesn't have any plans on ever becomming anything else. Christianity has always tried to convert the world to the Kingdom of Haeven. Your right about the hostility towards Christianity in the Cities Nephele...yet Taticus doesn't record the sentiments of the country people towards Christianity. (Unless you can show me something) Perhaps it was ten times worse....Cities offered places for Christians to hide in vast populations of immigrants. Cities are known for their cosmopoltian additudes, so people are still going to move forward with the trends...it only took a few people embracing Jesus to get the cycle going. YES I TOTTALLY AGREE that Christians were hated in the begining and that they were fed to the Lions...but this only made the Christian resolve to continue on. It made them Martyrs...it allow for Priests to tell the people that these Martrys had rissen and ascended into haeven. State religious intollerance towards Christianity turn out to be the worst policy. It fed the fire so to speak. -Zeke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nephele Posted April 2, 2007 Report Share Posted April 2, 2007 Hi, Zeke. While I understand what you're saying, I'm afraid I don't really see any concrete examples in what you wrote of Roman "atheists" adopting Christianity due to their finding that religion more appealing than atheism. Can you quote any ancient sources for me? And, yes, the bit of Tacitus that I quoted "doesn't record the sentiments of the country people towards Christianity" -- but then, I was responding only to your statement that the early Christians somehow found the cities "friendlier" to them. Not wishing to take this topic into a discussion of how modern-day atheists cope, as an atheist, myself, I do feel a need to respond to your statement that "even non-believers need something to feel like they are not alone in this universe." A disbelief in supernatural beings does not necessarily mean that the disbeliever feels that he or she is "alone in the universe". With no disrespect intended towards believers on this board, I can say that atheists find their contentment and fulfillment with real people in their lives. I'm also not really convinced that all of the pagan deities were entirely "the selfish human ones" (as contrasted to Christ) that you described. The Roman goddess Bona Dea (the Good Goddess) was (at least from my readings) a kindly and nurturing goddess, and also a patroness of slaves praying for their freedom. The fact that Rome's Christians did not believe in the existence of Bona Dea (or in any other deities of the State Religion), and instead found their solace in their Christ (which the Romans did not accept), contributed to the reasons why the early Christians were called "atheist" by the Romans. In an ironic parallel, today in the United States Christianity might be viewed as the State Religion, with atheists being generally regarded with the same suspicion and abhorrence with which Rome's early Christians were once regarded. To quote our President, G.W. Bush: "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." -- Nephele Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted April 2, 2007 Report Share Posted April 2, 2007 Zeke, your attempt to relate the religious sentiment of ancient people may be partly a logical assumption, but at least on the surface you seem to be ignoring the myriad of social, economic and political elements and non Roman cultural influences that affected one's pattern of thought, or belief system. While it may be true that the christian god was more appealing to formerly pagan Romans on an individual basis, I think an important issue to determine is why these people were looking for something new, or why they were willing to alter their belief systems. It wasn't simply that this new god was nicer to them or more beneficial, but that social conditions were ripe for change. Yes, urban residents were more open to this new religion than their rural counterparts, but large population centers are always more susceptible to rapidly changing conditions than smaller communities. It is difficult for a human being to just say... "I am alone, no magic fairy is going to help me." In the back of their mind their still hoping there is something...so the great mystery that is the human adventure will continue on after our eventual demise do to whatever illness or calamity that will eventually behallf us. Actually been the easiest thing for me to accept. It was "belief" that I found to be difficult and tormented me as a youth. I understand that the general observation of people may be that they prefer to believe, but it's less about avoiding a difficult decision process and more about a social environment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted April 2, 2007 Report Share Posted April 2, 2007 Hi, Zeke. While I understand what you're saying, I'm afraid I don't really see any concrete examples in what you wrote of Roman "atheists" adopting Christianity due to their finding that religion more appealing than atheism. Yes, that's my complaint too. Additionally, it's misleading to say that the Epicureans were merely "apatheists": they not only denied any divine intervention in human affairs, they also denied any afterlife ("Where I am death is not; where death is, I am not; and never the twain shall meet"), and--most importantly--they were outspoken polemicists on these positions, unlike equally naturalistic philosophers, such as Aristotle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Augusta Posted April 2, 2007 Report Share Posted April 2, 2007 Hi, Zeke. While I understand what you're saying, I'm afraid I don't really see any concrete examples in what you wrote of Roman "atheists" adopting Christianity due to their finding that religion more appealing than atheism. Yes, that's my complaint too. Additionally, it's misleading to say that the Epicureans were merely "apatheists": they not only denied any divine intervention in human affairs, they also denied any afterlife ("Where I am death is not; where death is, I am not; and never the twain shall meet"), and--most importantly--they were outspoken polemicists on these positions, unlike equally naturalistic philosophers, such as Aristotle. In my own (I'll admit) cynical and somewhat biased opinion, I have always believed that Christianity took such a hold precisely because it preached the forgiveness of sins and the promise of everlasting life. While the idea of being judged by Rhadamanthus at the gates of the Underworld was one with which the Romans and Greeks were familiar - and later Christian practice absorbed this belief too - the idea that one could die forgiven of all wrongs and thus enjoy a blissful afterlife was no doubt a winning formula! Not everyone was Achilles - longing for a short life full of glory and an equally glorious death. I am sure that there was as much concern about death in ancient times as there is now - therefore a religion that took as its central message the resurrection of its founder, a blessing extended to all his followers, must have been a great attraction among the ignorant and educated alike. This was in direct contrast to what the Epicureans preached - i.e. that there was oblivion before our birth and we would return to such oblivion after death. While the Epicureans meant to convey this as a comfort, I would say that whilst it may be easy to accept oblivion before we were born - accepting it after we have experienced existence is quite another thing. Any thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Septimus Flavius Galarius Posted April 2, 2007 Report Share Posted April 2, 2007 "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."-Thomas Jefferson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theilian Posted April 2, 2007 Report Share Posted April 2, 2007 Augusta. Exactly my sentiment. Although it seems that atheism existed in ancient times, I would say that it was always an extreme minority and I venture to say that it will remain so as long as we face mortality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nephele Posted April 2, 2007 Report Share Posted April 2, 2007 ...the idea that one could die forgiven of all wrongs and thus enjoy a blissful afterlife was no doubt a winning formula! No doubt a winning formula for the person in need of a free ride to paradise -- but a perversion of justice for those who might have been injured in life by the unconditionally forgiven (and perhaps a bit smug) adherent of Chrestus. I can imagine how such might have rankled those who chose to remain loyal to the deities they had always known and believed to govern the natural order. In fact, I can also imagine how ancient, god-fearing polytheists might have viewed the followers of Chrestus as being immoral -- having no fear of punishment in the afterlife for any wrong-doings on their part. Again, drawing an ironic parallel between the ancient world and the modern, atheists are mistakenly viewed by Christians today as being immoral for that very same reason. -- Nephele Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Augusta Posted April 2, 2007 Report Share Posted April 2, 2007 ...the idea that one could die forgiven of all wrongs and thus enjoy a blissful afterlife was no doubt a winning formula! No doubt a winning formula for the person in need of a free ride to paradise -- but a perversion of justice for those who might have been injured in life by the unconditionally forgiven (and perhaps a bit smug) adherent of Chrestus. I can imagine how such might have rankled those who chose to remain loyal to the deities they had always known and believed to govern the natural order. In fact, I can also imagine how ancient, god-fearing polytheists might have viewed the followers of Chrestus as being immoral -- having no fear of punishment in the afterlife for any wrong-doings on their part. Again, drawing an ironic parallel between the ancient world and the modern, atheists are mistakenly viewed by Christians today as being immoral for that very same reason. -- Nephele How right you are, Nephele! Even today if Christians confess their sins on the death-bed they are still assured of heaven. I've never understood it, myself. But I don't suppose it matters to me either way as I fully believe there is no heaven. And something that Zeke said in his opening post jarred with me a bit too. That the ancient polytheistic religions were all about control of the masses. Now, that is something I have always associated with monotheist religions - but others may disagree. Nor can I agree that people turned to Christianity to give them a warm, fuzzy feeling inside (I think you commented on this in one of your previous posts). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.