Ojuice5001

I've noticed that modern atheists often see precursors of themselves when looking at certain ancient philosophers (Lucretius, Epicurus, etc.). This is only natural when you consider that the atheistic ideal is to deny all gods equally. But I'm noticing that the relations of atheism and theism were different in the first century BCE than they are now.

First, though, let me say why I'm not bothered by the fact that atheists existed even under Jupiter's glorious rule. First, skepticism and materialism are perennial philosophies. If the gods are invisible, there's always going to be some wise guy who says to himself, "The invisible and the nonexistent look very much alike." But the recurrence of atheism no more proves atheism than the recurrence of solipsism proves solipsism.

Second, ancient atheists knew their place. They were just people who happened not to believe in the gods. They didn't interfere with the gods' plans or cults. Atheists are grateful that Imperial society didn't make things difficult for them like modern Christian society, but that's due to the fact that yesterday's atheists knew better than to inferfere with theism, as well as the nature of paganism.

That brings me to the main point of this post. When modern atheists are thinking about how to bring about a secular society, they don't look to Lucretius for inspiration. They look to someone like Voltaire, or Robert Ingersoll. Modern atheists have to some degree succeeded in secularizing society. But why is it only modern atheists? If no theistic religions are true, then why didn't atheism fare equally well against ancient Roman paganism?

Remember that if I'm right, the Roman gods revealed to people a much more truthful religion than Yahweh's Christianity (although Yahweh exists). So in other words, polytheistic paganism, Christianity, and atheism are true, false, and false, respectively. That seems like a perfect explanation of why atheism has posed so much more of a threat to Christianity than it did to Roman paganism. After all, if Christianity and polytheism are both false, then the atheistic sword of truth should cut them both equally well. But if paganism is true and Christianity is a successful lie, then it makes sense that atheists would find it easier to disprove a lie than the truth. And since that second is the situation we see, that points to the truth of Roman polytheism.

mike_decock

I don't think you can compare the potential influence of atheism to society solely on the veracity of the religion of the society. How much were religion and politics/education intertwined in ancient times? Bucking the religion would be bucking far more than a belief in those days.

-Mike...

Ojuice5001

Don't think that all educated people in classical society were skeptical of the gods, either.

Tom Sawyer

Why is it that you think the Roman polytheistic view is more valid than the Christian monotheistic view? They were both attempts by ancient societies to explain a world that they didn't have the tools to be able to understand. They anthropomorphized nature and gave characteristics to natural processes.

I don't know what Lucretis said, nor is it particularly relevant to me. But I think that one of the main reasons that secularism didn't fare as well in Roman society, is because athiests then couldn't give an alternate explanation. When a priest said that Jupiter created men out of clay (or whatever the Roman belief happened to be), the atheist couldn't say, "no, it happened this way...". Today, when a Christian says God created the world in 6 days approximately 6,000 years ago, an atheist can point to evolutionary processes supported by fossil and genetic evidence to show that that isn't true.

Roman atheist may have thought that the story of the Roman Gods didn't add up, but without anything to offer to replace it, there wasn't much to get their ideas off the ground. Now that technology has advanced to the point where we can begin to legitimately explain the universe without any kind of divine intervention, secular thought is gaining much more of an influence in society than it has had previously. If the Christian God hadn't replaced the Roman Gods as the dominant myth in our society, then our arguments as to why there is no divine influence in the world would focus on them, rather than on the Christian God. As it is, disputing the existence of Roman Gods isn't really seen as something worth doing.