Are Christians, Muslims and atheists idolaters?

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

You go ahead and analyze knowledge all you want.

I am not here to bother with that as that comes at the end of a debate and discussion, so say most philosophers, so I will go with them.

I do not intend to let you deflect from or derail the O.P.

Regards
DL

That Jews are not idolaters, and that scholars know this, raises a classic question: when in fact do we enjoy a twilight of the idols?

Jews run the gamete from atheists to orthodox.
Each group will put their ideology or God as their ideal and that makes them idol worshipers of their ideologies.

Ignore the preachy ending in this clip, but try to understand what he says as far as his description of whatever we place as our number one and ideal belief, regardless of what that belief is.

youtube.com/watch?v=SkZg1ZflpJs&t=1s

Regards
DL

Perhaps, when most people truly know?

Well indeed, not one idol to be found…

I think in the above there is a mixed up of perspectives and thus conflations and equivocations.

To put into perspective, the above issue fall into the main set of ‘representations’.
The point is representations can be presented in terms of;

A.Mental

  1. a mental thought
  2. an idea
  3. a concept
  4. words
  5. an ideology
    B. Physical
  6. an physical image [pictures, etc.]
  7. graven image
  8. human being [heroes, celebrities etc.]

From the above idols general refer to the physical and within religion and spirituality refer to graven images. Thus literally idols are one type of representation but not all representations are idols.

When the scriptures warned against idol worshipping, the reference is to representations that are physical ONLY and not to mental representations.
The point here is when Christians and Muslims are accusing others of idolatry they don’t realize they are also idolaters in the sense of their own use of images, statues and physical objects [e.g. Kaabah re Muslims, crosses, etc.].

Fundamentally a non-theist or atheist will just say ‘I am not a theist’ and this is a reliance of mental representations using words and sentences. This is merely a statement and is not even an ideology or an organized set of beliefs like theology or political beliefs.

Thus non-theists cannot be idolaters in any near sense to real idolaters who supposedly idolize physical representations ,i.e. graven images.

Agnostic like yourself may not be an idolater, but you are a representationalist who rely on an ideology [mental -5].

At best, we can say, theists, agnostics and non-theists rely on representations where some representations are idols while others are not.
So both theists and non-theists are representationalist, i.e. some theists are idolater-representationalist or ideological-representationalists, and non-theists are merely words-representationalists.

Agnostic theism is a better position than gnostic theism
Agnostic atheism is a better position than gnostic atheism

Agnostic atheism for me is the default position because of zero evidence for theism

this should be fun.

Greatest I Am

What kind of an idolater are you?
The way that I look at it, we all, in a sense, idolize something or someone ~ not just the Christian, Muslim, et cetera.
I idolize the stars, the trees, the ocean and its waves…

If a Christian or a Muslim or any spiritual person loves his/her god, that is not necessarily being an idolater.
It may simply be about having a relationship with Something or Someone thought to be greater than one’s self and finding meaning and perhaps service within that.

What makes an idolater depends on how extreme or fanatical one is and how that influences one’s behavior.
I think that it is a question of degrees.

Let us not go throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Again, what is it that you idolize? What brings out the idolater in you? :evilfun:

Aside from all of that, the only real thing perhaps which I see as pure idolatry is kneeling in front of a !statue! ~ it does not matter what statue ~ and praying to it, as if the statue itself was the real embodiment of who is being prayed to.
That is like a superstition to me, kind of magical thinking and behavior. I do realize that sometimes these statues are just to be used to maintain one’s focus on who is really being addressed but I can greatly suggest that these idolaters are praying to cold, hard formed material, though beautiful forms, without even realizing it.

Now that, to me, is idolatry.

Indeed.

And stop lying about what they do not or cannot know.

youtube.com/watch?v=vjRy29R4gP8

vimeo.com/25149893

Regards
DL