Atheisms best most enduring arguments ironically have their earliest expression in the Hebrew Tanakh, whence they were the basis for both Byzantine iconoclasm and Islams Hadith prohibiting images of living things. Biblical writers scathingly condemn pagan worship of fabricated idols without motion, speech or action, instead asserting a Creator of materials and craftsmen alike. In the same vein, biblical scribes repeatedly repudiate then popular notions of divinity limited to local power, arguing any genuine deity must have equal power in all places. It is thus easy to view contemporary atheism as the most developed form of rejecting gods made in mans image, which has an ancient and proud pedigree in Western civilization all the way back to the Abrahamic religions founding scriptures.
In an infamous case, the prophet Elijah is depicted challenging the priests of Baal to a "miracle-off:" Both sides would build an altar, fill it with sacrifices and pray for fire from heaven to consume it; the god who answered would be recognized as divine and the other rejected, with his priests summarily executed for blasphemy. The text relates that while the Baalites made increasingly frantic but ever fruitless pleas heavenward, Elijah sarcastically mocked them by telling them to pray louder, in case Baal was asleep, or on vacation, or "indisposed." Afterward, the narrative states he uttered his own prayer, immediately answered by fire from the sky consuming the sacrifice (and altar, and water that had been dumped on the sacrifice until it filled a surrounding trench; biblical scribes had no truck with equivocation. ) The better known deuterocanonical story of Bel and the Dragon is similar: The Babylonian king is said to affirm Bel as a god because its food and drink offerings are consumed daily; the prophet Daniel then demonstrates Bel does nothing of the sort, but is only a dead statue.
The dynamic recurs throughout the Old and New Testaments (in the first chapter of Romans, Paul reiterates it with his customary rigor and harshness) and is thus integral to the Western world, yet similarly significant and seminal Eastern examples are hard to find. Iconoclasm as such is not only common but sometimes pathological in the West and Mid-East (the latter is more truly Western than Eastern in the modern era, despite widely professed hatred for the West.) Again, the eponymous Orthodox case may be the most pivotal historical example, but Islam has its own, made notorious by the recent controversy over drawings of Mohammed.
In the Americas and Western Europe such fanaticism seems incomprehensible, but that mainly reflects a more recent tradition of pagan symbolism in those areas than in the Mid-East that first assaulted it. Incorporating pagan deities as Catholic saints rather than attacking them as idols was vital to Christianitys spread throughout both Western Europe and the New World, so iconoclasm has less orthodoxy. The irreparable damage it inflicted in the Great Schism makes more sense on that basis. The Roman Catholic Church would have been naturally reluctant to surrender a missionary tool indispensable in Early Medieval northern and western Europe. Yet what made it appealing in the West (pagan polytheism) was already largely absent Asia Minor, so the value was not only minor, but offensive, as an accomodation of paganism. It is certainly easy to imagine the same fervor and absolutism atheism affirms, on grounds of the same negative evidence, growing into similar fanaticism.
One sidebar: The Pentateuchs "I am 'I AM'" is also a strikingly advanced ontological statement for its era. It always interests me to see the bible present counter-arguments to atheism hundreds, if not thousands, of years before they would receive any response except, "wait... you're saying there are people who do not believe in ANY god?! " For ignorant primitives there is a lot of rather sophisticated "modern" thought in those old texts. On the other hand, some philosopher I read somewhere claimed there is nothing new under the sun. Note: NOT trying to proselytize; just thought it might make an interesting discussion.
In an infamous case, the prophet Elijah is depicted challenging the priests of Baal to a "miracle-off:" Both sides would build an altar, fill it with sacrifices and pray for fire from heaven to consume it; the god who answered would be recognized as divine and the other rejected, with his priests summarily executed for blasphemy. The text relates that while the Baalites made increasingly frantic but ever fruitless pleas heavenward, Elijah sarcastically mocked them by telling them to pray louder, in case Baal was asleep, or on vacation, or "indisposed." Afterward, the narrative states he uttered his own prayer, immediately answered by fire from the sky consuming the sacrifice (and altar, and water that had been dumped on the sacrifice until it filled a surrounding trench; biblical scribes had no truck with equivocation. ) The better known deuterocanonical story of Bel and the Dragon is similar: The Babylonian king is said to affirm Bel as a god because its food and drink offerings are consumed daily; the prophet Daniel then demonstrates Bel does nothing of the sort, but is only a dead statue.
The dynamic recurs throughout the Old and New Testaments (in the first chapter of Romans, Paul reiterates it with his customary rigor and harshness) and is thus integral to the Western world, yet similarly significant and seminal Eastern examples are hard to find. Iconoclasm as such is not only common but sometimes pathological in the West and Mid-East (the latter is more truly Western than Eastern in the modern era, despite widely professed hatred for the West.) Again, the eponymous Orthodox case may be the most pivotal historical example, but Islam has its own, made notorious by the recent controversy over drawings of Mohammed.
In the Americas and Western Europe such fanaticism seems incomprehensible, but that mainly reflects a more recent tradition of pagan symbolism in those areas than in the Mid-East that first assaulted it. Incorporating pagan deities as Catholic saints rather than attacking them as idols was vital to Christianitys spread throughout both Western Europe and the New World, so iconoclasm has less orthodoxy. The irreparable damage it inflicted in the Great Schism makes more sense on that basis. The Roman Catholic Church would have been naturally reluctant to surrender a missionary tool indispensable in Early Medieval northern and western Europe. Yet what made it appealing in the West (pagan polytheism) was already largely absent Asia Minor, so the value was not only minor, but offensive, as an accomodation of paganism. It is certainly easy to imagine the same fervor and absolutism atheism affirms, on grounds of the same negative evidence, growing into similar fanaticism.
One sidebar: The Pentateuchs "I am 'I AM'" is also a strikingly advanced ontological statement for its era. It always interests me to see the bible present counter-arguments to atheism hundreds, if not thousands, of years before they would receive any response except, "wait... you're saying there are people who do not believe in ANY god?! " For ignorant primitives there is a lot of rather sophisticated "modern" thought in those old texts. On the other hand, some philosopher I read somewhere claimed there is nothing new under the sun. Note: NOT trying to proselytize; just thought it might make an interesting discussion.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
This message last edited by Joel on 10/03/2012 at 05:59:09 AM
Atheism: The Iconoclasm of the West?
10/03/2012 05:42:56 AM
- 1292 Views
I think about as highly of athiesm as I do of christianity. *NM*
10/03/2012 05:54:20 AM
- 356 Views
I would chide you on that basis for having a love/hate relationship with God, but who does not?
10/03/2012 06:05:11 AM
- 522 Views
If the divine made men...
10/03/2012 06:27:42 AM
- 516 Views
True, but by the same token, in denying our nature we deny the divine.
10/03/2012 06:57:40 AM
- 532 Views
I was actually just saying in Skype this is the first post you've made in a long time I've enjoyed.
10/03/2012 07:02:56 AM
- 550 Views
But you do comparable things all the time!
10/03/2012 08:35:31 AM
- 745 Views
You've made this analogy before and it's still a bad one, those aren't comparable
10/03/2012 03:43:08 PM
- 630 Views
You said what I was thinking far more respectfully than I probably would have.
11/03/2012 12:14:55 AM
- 597 Views
You're right and wrong.
10/03/2012 05:09:32 PM
- 941 Views
Re: You're right and wrong.
11/03/2012 12:28:25 AM
- 848 Views
Nope, Buddhists are explicitly atheist and also explicitly Ontologically engaged
11/03/2012 01:39:20 AM
- 850 Views
Actually, Buddhists are not explicitly atheist in the conventional sense of the world.
11/03/2012 02:42:36 AM
- 649 Views
I guess it is that old impersonalism that seems the great disappointment in most Eastern religions.
11/03/2012 04:48:54 AM
- 750 Views
What you talkin' 'bout, Willis? *NM*
10/03/2012 06:29:35 PM
- 279 Views
I think he's saying that most arguments used on behalf of Atheism actually come from the Bible.
10/03/2012 06:58:50 PM
- 638 Views
Basically what Dan said; atheism as iconoclasm sans icons (unless we count religion as symbolism.)
11/03/2012 12:46:52 AM
- 653 Views
What exactly do you mean by "The irreparable damage it inflicted in the Great Schism"?
10/03/2012 07:57:59 PM
- 721 Views
That Byzantiums iconoclasm was one of the many wedges between it and Rome that led to the Schism.
11/03/2012 12:27:05 AM
- 642 Views
Bull. Shit.
11/03/2012 01:54:07 AM
- 713 Views
I did not say it was decisive, but that it did irreparable damage to the relationship.
11/03/2012 04:23:43 AM
- 730 Views
Bull. Shit.
11/03/2012 04:30:08 AM
- 593 Views
It is not like I just pulled it out of my rear, any more than my HS history text or Wikipedia did.
11/03/2012 04:57:31 AM
- 671 Views
Bull. Shit.
11/03/2012 05:14:01 AM
- 747 Views
Irreparable damage is damage that cannot be repaired, not necessarily serious or fatal.
11/03/2012 10:34:57 AM
- 816 Views
Mierda.del.Toro
11/03/2012 12:36:59 PM
- 697 Views
1969 may be "sometime back" in Roman Catholic history,but is ~a millenium after the time in question
12/03/2012 05:47:11 PM
- 949 Views
You really must get steamed by anyone calling you out on your hyberbolic comments
12/03/2012 06:55:06 PM
- 809 Views
On the contrary, I am not the one screaming "bullshit" in as many languages as possible.
13/03/2012 12:07:54 AM
- 850 Views
ο κοπρος. του ταυρου.
11/03/2012 02:19:11 PM
- 778 Views
Very edifying; can you do Mandarin or Swahili next?
12/03/2012 05:47:23 PM
- 684 Views
No. Even English seems to be beyond your grasp.
12/03/2012 06:29:50 PM
- 592 Views
Citing scripture does not justify telling me to kill myself.
13/03/2012 12:08:02 AM
- 726 Views
Give it up already. You are wrong.
12/03/2012 12:53:37 AM
- 897 Views
I will do the former at least; pretty sure this "discussion" has reached rock bottom.
13/03/2012 12:12:46 AM
- 540 Views
More or less your last line
11/03/2012 01:37:42 AM
- 616 Views
That is a broader argument, but more consistent with iconoclasms established meaning.
11/03/2012 05:12:12 AM
- 729 Views
Would you include the iconoclasm that Joel cites in the canonical Judeo-Christian tradition as well?
11/03/2012 12:44:49 PM
- 596 Views