Who will be called the next "atheists?"?

Question

QUOTE: "In the second century, it was Christians who were called “atheists,” because they failed to worship the accepted gods. “On the True Doctrine: A Discourse Against the Christians” was written in 178 A.D. by Celsus, an eclectic follower of Plato. The Christian deity, Celsus proclaimed, is a contradictory invention." END QUOTE

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2007/05/21/070521crbo_books_gottlieb?currentPage=3

Sorry Dude the quote I gave was from page 3. =]

Answer 1

You linked to page 3. For those of us who like it all in one page:

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2007/05/21/070521crbo_books_gottlieb?printable=true

EDIT: Yeah, but I wanted to read the whole thing. Here's my review:

There's a subtle undertone of ivy league smugness in that article, but it's from the New Yorker, so what's what to expect... Gottlieb tries to take a birds eye view, but lets his own biases shine through in cute juxtaposition. Still, he has a certain carefulness in his thinking that makes his article an interesting and thoughtful read.

He did mention what I told you earlier -- the Harris/Dawkins doctrine that religious militants somehow enable the fundamentalists. To paraphrase Harris, "moderates defend the right of fundamentalists to believe things without good evidence." I reject that thesis.

Harris fails to address exactly how freedom of thought "enables" anyone but people who want to think freely.

With or without the nod of moderates, fundamentalists will do their own -- Fred Phelps, for example, does not seek any intellectual approval of the Archbishop of Canterbury. But, if the fundamentalists try to start a new inquisition or persecute non-believers, it is the religious moderates who would be the first to stand and defend atheism.

Atheists and religious liberals are usually in agreement, on almost everything but the existence of God, actually. And if you take religious liberals out of the picture, there's no one left to defend atheists' right to be atheists.

So Harris's argument is non-sequitur in that regard.

Well, I started off by reviewing the article, but I went on a rant.

Answer 2

That piece of fancy is dizzying enough on its own. But imagine attempting such a thought experiment in the contrary fashion, and rolling it back several thousand years to reveal a world with no churches, mosques, or temples. The idea that people would have been nicer to one another if they had never got religion, as Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris seem to think, is a strange position for an atheist to take. For if man is wicked enough to have invented religion for himself he is surely wicked enough to have found alternative ways of making mischief.

In the early days of the Christian era, nobody was fantasizing about a world with no religion, but there were certainly those who liked to imagine a world with no Christians. The first surviving example of anti-Christian polemic is strikingly similar in tone to that of some of today’s militant atheists. In the second century, it was Christians who were called “atheists,” because they failed to worship the accepted gods.


and they Call us Christians crazy for Worshipping Him who was and is and will forever be
and was and is and will forever be PROVEN LORD
JESUS CHRIST our Saviour

Answer 3

A matter of semantics. You and I both know that in context, the meaning was infidel or heretic.

Perhaps a better definition will come along, but I'm sticking with atheist for now. "Brights" is not a group I'd want to be around.

Answer 4

No i hate that show its filled with fake people i cant watch anymore it makes me want to throw up the way girls are so sluty & the guys are idiots on it. I really hope mtv tells them what to say and how to act & that they arent like that in real life! :D

Answer 5

Anyone is an atheist, sweetheart, unless they believe in every single god concept ever conceived by man. You're an atheist, I'm an atheist, pagans are atheists, Hindus are atheists, etc.

Answer 6

the true definition of an athiest is one who believes in nothing and has no religion so i think those who are considered atheists will remain the same. you might have perhaps thought about your question a bit more before posting it.

Answer 7

They believed in a deity. Ergo, not atheist.

Answer 8

Only the God knows.

Answer 9

pastafarins!