C
crowonsnow
Guest
No, they’re atheist. They’re neither agnostic theist nor agnostic atheist. They’re as certain that gods aren’t real as your typical theist is certain that gods are real.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
C
crowonsnow
Guest
If you believe that other gods are real you are polytheistic. If you have a favorite god and only venerate it you are henotheistic in practice but still polytheistic in belief.This is a simplistic caricature of theism. There isn’t a “Jesus Christ” god about which to be atheistic. By definition all monotheists are talking about the same God. We aren’t atheistic about each other’s “gods,” because God is not (just) a god. Until atheists figure that out you will be unable even to mount a reasonable critique of monotheism.
That’s my point. Odin is a god. Of course there are gods. The Bible talks about them. They are created by God and we do not worship them–that’s what makes us different from polytheists.
Edwin
Monotheists do not all venerate the same god. For one thing, if they did, they wouldn’t be trying to convert each other.
B
BlaineTog
Guest
Only if you don’t make a distinction between “god” and “God,” which Christianity makes. God is the omniomni, whereas Zeus is just very powerful, like an angel or something. Zeus’ existence would no more effect on monotheism than the existence of a very smart computer programmer, or a strongman who can lift 1,000 lbs.If you believe that other gods are real you are polytheistic. If you have a favorite god and only venerate it you are henotheistic in practice but still polytheistic in belief.
We disagree on how the one God acts in creation and on many of his attributes, but we all believe in basically the same person.Monotheists do not all venerate the same god. For one thing, if they did, they wouldn’t be trying to convert each other.
A
ASimpleSinner
Guest
Well good for them! Excellent.No, they’re atheist. They’re neither agnostic theist nor agnostic atheist. They’re as certain that gods aren’t real as your typical theist is certain that gods are real.
They are absolute athiests. They are righteous among the nations. They are inspired to great moral character sans any moral compass.
You are alucky person to know many such people.
Bless you.
C
crowonsnow
Guest
Moral is as moral does. I’d say their moral compass is in excellent condition.They are inspired to great moral character sans any moral compass.
A
ASimpleSinner
Guest
Well there you go then. Again, kudos and hazah.Moral is as moral does. I’d say their moral compass is in excellent condition.
I
InNomineDomini
Guest
Within the context of a Catholic forum, and within a subsection of such a forum that is dedicated to philosophy, simply implying to a Catholic theist that they could be mistaken is indeed entirely foolish, irrelevant, and is disrespectful to their intellectual integrity and dexterity.Wow i just realised you used like THE only subject in which the statment what if your wrong is a stupid question…
What, precisely, is the purpose of such a question? Are you silently warning the Catholic that they are headed towards dangerous waters, and are solemnly pleading with them to re-think their course? Are you perhaps expecting a detailed and intricate exposition of theistic apologetics? Or are you more nefarious in your intent, and simply wanting to stir pots and rattle cages? What?
C
crowonsnow
Guest
A lot of people are “wrong.” Don’t you agree? That’s the point of the question. You may be one.Within the context of a Catholic forum, and within a subsection of such a forum that is dedicated to philosophy, simply implying to a Catholic theist that they could be mistaken is indeed entirely foolish, irrelevant, and is disrespectful to their intellectual integrity and dexterity.
What, precisely, is the purpose of such a question? Are you silently warning the Catholic that they are headed towards dangerous waters, and are solemnly pleading with them to re-think their course? Are you perhaps expecting a detailed and intricate exposition of theistic apologetics? Or are you more nefarious in your intent, and simply wanting to stir pots and rattle cages? What?
So the fact that this is a catholic owned board is not relevant to the OP.
Even Catholics believe that other Catholics are “wrong” and that some of those Catholics are bound for a hell. Right? So why not ask the broader question?
D
davidv
Guest
Because it is simply rhetoric, and serves no useful purpose.Even Catholics believe that other Catholics are “wrong” and that some of those Catholics are bound for a hell. Right? So why not ask the broader question?
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
Agree. And I think I as much proved that in my exposition above.Because it is simply rhetoric, and serves no useful purpose.
Rhetoric is a sign of insincerity. Engaging it is to concede to an illicit and insincere encounter with all the attendant risks of any viral sort of contagion. It’s the stuff that spawns heresy.
James
C
crowonsnow
Guest
One man’s heresy is another man’s religion.It’s the stuff that spawns heresy.
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
Corollary:One man’s heresy is another man’s religion.
Where there is no religion there is no man.
James
C
crowonsnow
Guest
So are you saying that heresy is religion and therefore good, that heresy makes men?Corollary:
Where there is no religion there is no man.
I’m somewhat confused by your response. Is being a heretic better than not being religious? Is practicing a heretical religion better than practicing no religion at all?
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
No, not at all crowonsnow. In the formula I made absolutely no implicit judgement on the correctness or incorrectness of religion. So the concept of heresy is not directly implied at all; though it could be inferred through a condition of ambiguous existence (more in a moment *****).So are you saying that heresy is religion and therefore good, that heresy makes men?
I’m somewhat confused by your response. Is being a heretic better than not being religious? Is practicing a heretical religion better than practicing no religion at all?
What I am really saying here is that it is impossible for a person to exist without having some kind of religious belief. If a person exists then there are two possibilities. One either believes (correctly or not) in a god like entity in some manner of relationship with himself (by definition “a religion”) or one believes that there is no god like entity and thus forms an identity relationship in his absolute conviction of denial with himself to make himself God/god (with others). This latter person creates a negative sort of religion of self worship to make himself a proxy for the concept of god in the assertion of either: 1) The absolute infallible denial (atheist) of God/gods or; 2) In the absolute infallible assertion that there is the “possibility” for God/gods (agnostic). Both are more than mere philosophies - in the absolute conviction they becomes a self centered religion “of self” and “self introspection”; what Christians would probably attribute to a blinding hubris similar to Satan’s. The clear implication is that a person through virtue of their infallible or absolute thinking (conscious of it or not), essentially pretends to have omnificent attributes to arrogantly act as if they are God.
It’s axiomatic too that where there is no human belief or awareness of any sort there can be no living human being. God however can be and is conventionally believed to be present anywhere. Thus in an ironic manner God exists with or without man or religion just fine.
[Edited by Moderator]
James
S
Sideline
Guest
This part makes perfect sense.What I am really saying here is that it is impossible for a person to exist without having some kind of religious belief.
This makes sense, but it could have been put more clearly.One either believes (correctly or not) in a god like entity in some manner of relationship with himself (by definition “a religion”)…
"…one believes that there is no god like entity and thus forms an identity relationship in his absolute conviction of denial with himself to make himself God/god (with others). This latter person creates a negative sort of religion of self worship to make himself a proxy for the concept of god in the assertion of either: 1) The absolute infallible denial (atheist) of God/gods or; 2) In the absolute infallible assertion that there is the “possibility” for God/gods (agnostic). "
This just gets weird. Yes, not believing in God is a religious belief. But to suggest that atheism or agnosticism is self-worship is to completely misunderstand them. I know many atheists. I am an atheist. Yet none of us practice in anything like the self-worship you describe.
The atheist’s assertion that there is no god, is no more claiming infallibility than claiming that there is a god. Or in fact, saying that anything does or does not exist.Both are more than mere philosophies - in the absolute conviction they becomes a self centered religion “of self” and “self introspection”; what Christians would probably attribute to a blinding hubris similar to Satan’s. The clear implication is that a person through virtue of their infallible or absolute thinking (conscious of it or not), essentially pretends to have omnificent attributes to arrogantly act as if they are God.
Do you deny that all the fortune you receive in life is a product of your ancestors benevolence? I’m guessing not. By your reason, you are claiming that veneration to yourself by claiming control over your own fortunes.
If god exist as you described, this is true. If god does not exist, or is different than what you described, then you are wrong.Thus in an ironic manner God exists with or without man or religion just fine.
A
Abbadon
Guest
Like i stated above. It is a common question asked of well known athiests during the question time of seminars and debates. So i was turning around and intrested in the kind of response a catholic might give… How can it be a stupid question? What is wrong with bieng humble to admit hte possiblity one could be wrong, I’m not humble about it but its a total possibilty that many of the things i belive could be wrong, and i’m willing to accept that.Within the context of a Catholic forum, and within a subsection of such a forum that is dedicated to philosophy, simply implying to a Catholic theist that they could be mistaken is indeed entirely foolish, irrelevant, and is disrespectful to their intellectual integrity and dexterity.
What, precisely, is the purpose of such a question? Are you silently warning the Catholic that they are headed towards dangerous waters, and are solemnly pleading with them to re-think their course? Are you perhaps expecting a detailed and intricate exposition of theistic apologetics? Or are you more nefarious in your intent, and simply wanting to stir pots and rattle cages? What?
A
Abbadon
Guest
So it’s okay for a catholic or religious person to ask the question of a non relegious but its not okay the other way around?Agree. And I think I as much proved that in my exposition above.
Rhetoric is a sign of insincerity. Engaging it is to concede to an illicit and insincere encounter with all the attendant risks of any viral sort of contagion. It’s the stuff that spawns heresy.
James
C
crowonsnow
Guest
It is also worth noting that if someone has not been introduced to the idea of fairies and dragons and gremlins that person will have no beliefs regarding fairies, dragons and gremlins.What I am really saying here is that it is impossible for a person to exist without having some kind of religious belief.
If the point here is that a person who does not think gods are real is simply making himself into those gods, that doesn’t make any sense. It is like asserting that a person who disbelieves in a Bigfoot has simply taken on the identity of the Bigfoot, and that this somehow accounts for their disbelief.One either believes (correctly or not) in a god like entity in some manner of relationship with himself (by definition “a religion”) or one believes that there is no god like entity and thus forms an identity relationship in his absolute conviction of denial with himself to make himself God/god (with others). This latter person creates a negative sort of religion of self worship…
Can you can think of something you do not believe is real? Is your disbelief in same the result of your having taken on that thing’s identity? Maybe you are willing to give me an example of something you think is not real and we can discuss this point.
B
BlaineTog
Guest
Actually, CentralFLJames is right, though not as right as he thought. Belief in God and belief in Bigfoot are substantially different beliefs. God is the lawgiver; it is from him that we judge right and wrong. If you disbelieved in God with every fiber of your being, you would no longer take any orders for how you should act from God and would set yourself up as “God” insofar as you would become your own lawgiver. Now mind you, most atheists (certainly most atheists I’ve met) still follow their consciences, and the conscience is the Holy Spirit’s voice to the human telling us what the laws are and how they apply to our current situations. We can misinterpret this voice, but as long as we listen to and follow it, we are de facto following God’s laws.If the point here is that a person who does not think gods are real is simply making himself into those gods, that doesn’t make any sense. It is like asserting that a person who disbelieves in a Bigfoot has simply taken on the identity of the Bigfoot, and that this somehow accounts for their disbelief.
S
Sideline
Guest
This is definitely true.Belief in God and belief in Bigfoot are substantially different beliefs.
People believe god is the law giver. It is what they believe god wants what theybelieve they are following. Theists really get there values the same way the rest of us do.God is the lawgiver; it is from him that we judge right and wrong.
Really what would happen, is that you continue to follow the laws of your community, the general sense of fairness people evolved with, the customs that you have been trained to observe, and your imaginings of how the world should work. The same rules that believers are following without realizing it. But that’s okay, most atheists don’t realize that’s what they are following either.If you disbelieved in God with every fiber of your being, you would no longer take any orders for how you should act from God and would set yourself up as “God” insofar as you would become your own lawgiver.
People who feel that only their rules matter are called sociopaths. They make up about 2% of the general population, and don’t fall neatly into any one belief system.
That’s what theists believe is going on.We can misinterpret this voice, but as long as we listen to and follow it, we are de facto following God’s laws.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.