Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I happen to think that "default setting" would not be the right word for sets of "religious genes" that a person might or might not have. Religious people just found it more convenient to express rancor against nonbelievers who contradict their personally happy thoughts by their mere existence/contradicting beliefs. It think that the growth in hatred of "non-believers just for being such" comes mainly from Bibliolatry especially from the Abrahamic descent, although also from Religions with centralized power that needed scapegoats.
It is hard to justify incorrect centralization of power without religion. The plethora of Ancient Atheistic schools were less Congregational, less Indoctrinational, and probably less motivated [although the religious are faultily motivated] and MUCH less supported by Rulers and the Religious than vice-versa. They popped up based on growing philosophical (Education) levels and would often support religious tolerance letting intolerant religious groups take over and kill widely.
The living God never accepted the ancient civilization and nations which sided with wicked ideas , as God in the prophecies proclaimed to judge countless nations and leaders of these nation , even though many had strange gods which they invented ........ Then God also judge the people who make their selves as gods and were they do not need the living God , so then man is god error ......... then atheism attendants for the past probably had some idol hid away
This article doesn't seem like news to me. It is very clear that religion and religious matters were generally devoid of offensive intolerance prior to the ascendancy of Christianity. The most notable war grounded strongly in religion prior to that was the invasion of Canaan by nomadic Jews in the 8th century BCE, and even that war could be considered mostly a war of land acquisition, with the religious aspect merely a background, secondary consideration. And that was indicative of practically all earlier wars with religious undertones: Wars intended to acquire land or riches were characterized as wars between local gods, but the religious aspect was just color commentary, little different from regard for the national flag is in today's secular conflicts. Christianity changed that, with the crusades, making religion the primary impetus for the wars. It is almost as if ancient peoples understood religion in its proper context, fungible over time, and therefore never worth the kind of heavy investment that Christianity insisted. By contrast, the Pauline doctrines crafted intransigent, practically belligerent, lines in the sand, calling on adherents to abide or effectively be damned. That moved religion from merely a means of binding people together into a primary focus of hatred, where previously only nationalism and the effects of scarcity had such impact.
The living God never accepted the ancient civilization and nations which sided with wicked ideas , as God in the prophecies proclaimed to judge countless nations and leaders of these nation , even though many had strange gods which they invented ........ Then God also judge the people who make their selves as gods and were they do not need the living God , so then man is god error ......... then atheism attendants for the past probably had some idol hid away
Hmmm. Which "ancient civilization and nations" did NOT side with wicked ideas at some point?
There's a popular tendency, I think, to assume that all religions take themselves as seriously as conservative orthodox Christianity does -- by which I mean not just protestant evangelical / fundamentalists but also conservative Catholics and probably most of Christendom prior to the Enlightenment.
My guess is that polytheism worked a lot like modern Hinduism, where there are countless deities and each family picks the ones they like best. Another family or clan or tribe might "adopt" different gods or even have an entirely different pantheon but it is not an automatic existential threat that they do, because one's eternal destiny doesn't hinge upon it. When entering the home of some other person you show respect for their favored deity, and that's all there is to it.
From this it is not difficult to imagine that someone who has no deity at all was at most just a little different. It is a private matter of no real concern. It was only when Christianity came along and absolutized its deity and introduced concepts of this deity's eternal vengeance against the unbelieving, that atheism became intolerable or even consequential. In fact, my guess is that the reason atheism is perceived as a recent development in human history is that prior to that, there was no need for the concept. Today we have no words like "aleprechaunist" for those who don't believe in leprechauns. I suspect that, similarly, the ancient world had no word for "atheist" or that if they did it was a matter of relative indifference.
"the rancor"? We don't hate atheists. We just tend to react strongly when people come onto religious message boards trashing us and our religion.
I know that you're entirely virtuous in this regard, Viz, but please don't deny that atheists have, at least until very recently, been despised and loathed and demonized by society.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
