Atheism is not something one would expect to have a written history, but it certainly is discussed in modern religious documents.
Were ancient peoples (or even recent peoples like the Pilgrims) identifying atheists, or were they just lumped in with other religions, animists, sinners, and heretics, etc.?
Were there famous atheists among the Greek philosophers, for example?
Among the Mayflower passengers?
Considering the word ‘atheist’ comes from ancient Greek … Check out Epicurus, that’s the first name that comes to my mind.
The word atheist, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, came to us not from ancient Greek, but modern Italian:
1568 Coverdale-
Eat we and rink we lustily;
to-morrow we shall die:
which all the epicures protest openly,
and the Italian atheoi.
In the time of the Pilgrims, any wrong thinker could be described as an atheist, despite being Christian.
1603 Hayward-
They of your society [Jesuits]… are the only atheologians whose heads entertain no other object but the tumult of realms.
It depends on how you define atheist firstly.
Some people strictly define atheism as simply being non-religious.
Others define atheism as being anti-religious.
If we’re working with the former (a definition I prefer) then I think it is very safe to say yes.
For one, most Romans and Greeks were not real believers in their religion. Most of the famous Romans and Greeks enjoyed the mythology and the stories that went along with it, but they didn’t hold their religion to be near as serious/spiritual as say a modern day devout Christian would.
Obviously there were people who took the religion very seriously but I’ve always had the impression that huge numbers of the people participated in it because of the social connotations but intellectually didn’t much care, and didn’t consider it “the absolute truth.”
What? I’m afraid I’m going to have to ask for a cite for this claim.
Wow, I don’t remember ordering a boat load of assumptions. There’s the one about the nature of the relationship that “modern day devout Christians” have with their beliefs. And there’s again that extraordinary claim about the nature of the Romans’ and Greeks’ personal beliefs. And there’s that one that the one has anything to do with the other or with any definition of atheism, especially the one you expressed a preference for.
Again.
And what does this have to do with atheism? There are plenty of sincerely religious people today who don’t believe that they are in possession of “the absolute truth.”
I’ll reply in reverse order.
I’ll try, though. Most Christians accept that God created the world. Most of the famous Greeks I’ve read about that have ever spoken in their literature I do not think really believed much about their religion.
Have you ever read any Greek philosophers in the natural sciences? There explanations for how the world was created instantly prove they don’t believe the story of Oranos and Poseidon and others creating the world’s animals and sea creatures et cetra.
There really is not an assumption when it comes to devout Christians. If a Christian doesn’t really believe in the precepts of their religion then they are not a devout Christian. That is why I used the adjective devout, because I know a lot of people (2 billion) are Christian, but not all of them take their religion very seriously or are even part of their religion in anything more than name.
I just used a bit of logic to deduce that a lot of them weren’t exactly the most religious of people.
For one, any of the writers of the ancient natural sciences is instantly going against his religion. The Romans adopted Gods of various different peoples. It seems a bit presumptive to assume that the Romans in general really believed that say, a foreign god of war, who was worshipped in manners not befitting their own Mars, was actually the same god just being worshipped in a different way and different name. You doubt the Romans intelligence if you really believe that religion was anything more than a tool for them.
Go here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/history/index.shtml
and read some things like this:
“The Ancient World
Most histories of atheism choose the Greek and Roman philosophers Epicurus, Democritus, and Lucretius as the first atheist writers. While these writers certainly changed the idea of God, they didn’t entirely deny that gods could exist.”
That’s pretty far back in history.
"The soul cannot survive separation from the body, since it is necessary to understand that it too is a part.
By itself the soul cannot ever either exist (even though Plato and the Stoics talk a great deal of nonsense on the subect) or experience movement, just as the body does not possess sensation when the soul is released from it." - Epicurus
There are 5 pages and a lot more info.
So are you just itching for a debate? Writing a paper? Thinking of becoming one? Just curious here.
In light of the evidence you offer, I’m going to suggest then that your broad claim that “most Romans and Greeks were not real believers in their religion” requires some limitation.
So a person who claims to be a Christian but whose faith does not meet the parameters you set forth here is an atheist. :dubious:
:dubious:
Do you actually have any knowledge or experience of polytheism at all? Many polytheists are perfectly willing to accept that (1) there are gods other than the ones they worship (which ones might be better or worse might be an open question), (2) other people’s gods might be identical to their own gods but have been given different expression by their worshippers, and (3) different ways to expressing religious belief are perfectly okay. Are you saying that such a belief system amounts to atheism?
:wally
These two paragraphs involve a fairly large assumption - that one cannot believe in most science about how the world/animals/etc. came about while simultaneously believing in a deity, about whom there are creation stories that don’t necessarily match the scientific explanations.
It doesn’t necessarily follow that one must be an atheist if they work in the natural sciences, or find explanations of the universe’s origins, evolution, and so forth to be compelling and most likely the truth. It could well simply mean that these people are not literalists about their religions’ sacred texts/tales. For instance, many “parables” are presented in the New Testament of the Christian Bible (I’m forgetting if they occur elsewhere) as a means of illustrating a point. One could extrapolate from this that perhaps the literal mechanics of the world’s creation in Genesis might have been a parable as well, or simply “dumbed down” for a non-scientific audience.
Which is one reason why historians are still arguing whether, despite the wide range of religious heresies that did emerge there in that period, there were any actual non-believers-in-a-divine-creator in England in the seventeenth century. Many historians would answer, ‘probably not’.
I don’t necessarily believe in a higher power, but I’m open to evidence to the contrary. I’m not an atheist, because, in my opinion, that is a strong belief in the absence of a god, not the inclination to disbelieve the presence of one. I’m an agnostic… but I’m WAY over on the atheist side of the agnostic spectrum.
In Christian eyes (generally), I’m an atheist, I guess.
I don’t have the book in front of me, but in Karen Armstrong’s “History of God” the implication was that the term “atheist” meaning “belief in no god” is relatively recent.
The original meaning of the term as used by religious writers was to mean “against God”, and so included apostate believers or members of other religions.
IIRC, Armstrong makes the claim that the people of the day couldn’t conceive of someone not believing in ANY god.
I’m currently reading Plato’s Apology which is about the trial of Socrates. In addition to being charged with corrupting the youth, Socrates was also accused of atheism, although the term I’ve encountered so far is “denying the existence of the Gods”. So it’s not as if it were an alien concept, although it does seem to have been considered a grave or capital crime, even in Ancient Greek times. So I doubt there were a lot of people bragging about it. (Socrates denies that he is an atheist, at least as far as I’ve gotten)
If by atheist, you refer to someone who doesn’t believe in a distinct anthropocentric supreme being, then the Buddha was an atheist.
I’m exactly the same, but I’ll go one further, I don’t think religion is necessarily a bad thing. It gives many people a code to live by, answers to life’s problems, something to keep them on the straight and narrow etc etc. Without religion, I don’t think education and law alone could stop crime and encourage people to treat each other nice!
It is my understanding that the degree to which ancient Greeks and Romans held their respective mythologies to be true or to be merely good stories and excuses for holding parties is hotly debated among historians and has been for some time. It is generally accepted that many of the sophisticates among those societies did not take the myths seriously at all, and commonly assumed that at least some people took them quite literally, but everything else is more or less up for grabs. What Martin Hyde wrote is certainly well within the broad scholarly consensus. If you want a cite, I can get some of my course books and check the bibliographies.
Certainly Aristotle, for example, did not believe in anything close to the traditional pantheon, but his “unmoved mover” makes him a non-atheist by most standards.
God only knows! 
Ditto for the Jews.
The fool says in his heart,
“There is no God.”
Psalm 14:1
I think the OP has it backward.
The question should be: “Who was the first theist?” - the first person to posit the existence of a supreme being. Everyone who lived before that event would, depending on definitions, be either an atheist or agnostic.
You might as well ask “Were there always people who **didn’t **believe in a Magic Sky Pixie?” Obviously, yes, as far back as there were people.