I am equating idolaters with all believers/atheists and non-idolaters with agnostics, yes.
Your last is counter intuitive. A believer names his God and that makes him an idolater. Unless you think he does not care much about the ideology of his God, and then the question becomes, why believe in a less than ideal God?
Perhaps I can make sense of what you put if you give an example.
Regards
DL
“Naming” god seems to be a fairly trivial act without much significance.
If he sees a less than ideal god, then that’s the god he believes exists.
What does “ideal god” mean? It has to be a fabrication unless he always calls god “ideal”.
Would be better to equate idolatry with gnostic theists and atheists and non idolatry with agnostic theists and atheists
As not all believers and non believers are absolutely certain that what they believe or do not believe is definitely true
Strange that you would see a person choosing a God and ideology to live life by as trivial.
If the God he selects is less than ideal, then why call it God, given that God is generally described as perfect?
Regards
DL
Sigh. To have the position that they will be swayed by facts means one has a set of epistemological beliefs about what a fact is. As I said already, they are certain about epistemology and you have just confirmed that you also believe they are.
You tried to make religious people appear to be hypocrites based on scriptural condemnations of idolatry. You have failed to do this because you do not use the term correctly, and certainly not as the scriptures do. You also simply list bad things they have done or believed, as if this demonstrates idolatry. But it does not. Your position, as it often is, is confused, but because you hate religions you seem to find it hard to let of whatever hot new angle, or gotcha you think you have found.
Your beliefs about the scriptural meaning of idolatry of incorrect. But you idolize your own incorrect belief and will not admit, even in the face of evidence that this is the case.
You probably do not think you have beliefs, even though you assert things all the time.
Gnostic theist is not a term I accept. Gnostics of all persuasion are esoteric ecumenists which negates our being theists. We do not recognize any of the Gods as true Gods and above us.
I also do not recognize the terms agnostic theists or agnostic atheist.
Both theists and atheists are firm in their position while agnostic and Gnostic Christians are not.
Regards
DL
Thanks for the personal garbage.
“what a fact is.”
If two people cannot agree on the definition for facts, then, like here, better to just shake my head and walk away.
I will let you get sidetracked by semantics and the definition of words.
Regards
DL.
It’s just incomprehensible how you manage to come to this conclusion when I wrote this : ‘“Naming” god seems to be a fairly trivial act without much significance.’
Cause that’s the god he finds.
Is your choice of ideology, your ideal way of life, a trivial thing to you?
If not, why would you think it would be to a theist who choses his God and ideology?
Regards
DL
You seem to have some reading comprehension issues.
Everything you said there is completely wrong so it would help if you used these terms as they are commonly understood
You may not accept gnostic theist as a term but they do exist as they are theists who absolutely think that God exists
And agnostic theists and agnostic atheists also exist as I myself am an agnostic atheist and most or many atheists are
I do not think God exists but I cannot be absolutely certain he does not and so I am therefore not firm in my position
Gnostic theist is not a term I accept Gnostics of all persuasion are esoteric ecumenists which negates our being theists
We do not recognize any of the Gods as true Gods and above us
I also do not recognize the terms agnostic theists or agnostic atheist
Both theists and atheists are firm in their position while agnostic and Gnostic Christians are not
[/quote]
Ev
You say as you invent a non-dictionary term. You say I am wrong but do not put a truth to refute me.
[/quote]
I see you as an atheist then as you fit the dictionary definition. But hey, if you want to act more like a agnostic, feel free. I do not think you have to invent new non-dictionary terms though.
Regards
DL
You are treating agnostic and atheist as completely independent terms
For you are not accepting that agnostic atheist is also a legitimate one
And so therefore no inventing of non dictionary terms is occurring here
I conceded that in my post to you elsewhere previously this morning. I see the dictionary definitions as melding words they should not meld.
They are using gnostic now for atheists as well as agnostics and I have heard neither group say that ----- what they know is intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest.
The dictionary has begun to mix or meld the terms, so ok. The dictionaries are also using gnostic and agnostic interchangeably, so the definitions are a changing and melding. Stupid since one is esoteric and the other is not.
That does not negate that that ideal, however you wish to describe it, is still his ideal mental position and he idolizes it and hold it supreme. He is thus an idolater. If not, he would not take the label.
Regards
DL
I hold logic and mathematics to a higher mental position than atheism
And this is because they deal in proof while atheism cannot be proven
Classic question really, the simple answer speaks for itself.
How about this: ‘What constitutes the certainty of a well-learned ego?’
I find this test really works.
Sigh. Making a definition of facts is one thing, determining what specific assertions get considered a fact - that is,one’s epistemology - is another thing. Agnostics, just like everyone else, are sure about their epistemology.
The criteria for what constitutes a fact, what kinds of evidence, testimony and which experts determine facts, that’s where it gets complicated, not the definition per se - since definitions - in the dictionary say - set those issues aside, since they present abstracts without getting into epistemology. Even amongst secular educated people you find extreme disagreements about ‘what the facts are’. So when I read someone - in this case you - say something about ‘the facts’ as if ‘we all know what those are’, I think they may not understand, and perhaps one should in a philosophical context, that the word ‘fact’ in contrast to something else, does not really give us any information. It sounds simple, but epistmologically it is not. A suggestion: focus, on day, away from the secular/religious divide, and watch two secular groups, with differing stances on something: politics, how to raise children, male/female issues - see how each group throws ‘facts’ at the other. They may all even agree on the definition of ‘fact’ but have differing epistemologies and different experts they trust and so what they consider factual differs.
So when you say ’
You are confirming what I said. They have certainties about epistemology, and they see certain things as facts and they have utter confidence in their own epistemological beliefs - iow how one arrives at the categorization of something as a fact. Not that all agnostics agree with each other, but each is an idolator - by your extreme definition of idolatry - of their ideas about epistemology.
One can look at one issue - does the agnostic believe in God or not - and say, they are not idolators. Or one can look at how they justify their agnosticism, and find that if we use your extreme and idiosyncratic definition of idolatry, agnostics also are completely sure of certain things. And yes, they call those things ‘facts’ or they are ideas about epistemology.
One can, yes, walk away, shaking one’s head retaining confidence in what one considers obvious. That is always an option. But that would have to be based on a kind of idolatry, as you define idolatry. Just look at all the things you are sure of about religious people. And yes, you consider them ‘facts’. Many of them I do also.
Neither can theism, which indicates that agnostic or Gnostic is the best position. No?
Regards
DL
Your two post say exactly nothing to the rank and file.
Why are you even here?
Regards
DL