Are Christians, Muslims and atheists idolaters?

[Dafoe]

Are Christians, Muslims and atheists idolaters?

Scholars think so and so do I.

Regards
DL

Classic question really, the simple answer speaks for itself.

[Dafoe]

[.

"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.

Regards
DL.

How about this: 'What constitutes the certainty of a well-learned ego?'

I find this test really works.

[Karpel Tunnel]

"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.

Regards
DL.

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 '

They are on the fence and open to being knocked off to either side depending on facts

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.

[Greatest I am]

That does not negate that that ideal however you wish to describe it is still his ideal mental position and he idolizes it and holds it supreme

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

Neither can theism, which indicates that agnostic or Gnostic is the best position. No?

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

[.

"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.

Regards
DL.

How about this: 'What constitutes the certainty of a well-learned ego?'

I find this test really works.

Your two post say exactly nothing to the rank and file.

Why are you even here?

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

"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.

Regards
DL.

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 '

They are on the fence and open to being knocked off to either side depending on facts

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.

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

[Dafoe]

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?

[Greatest I am]

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.

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

Regards
DL

[1mpious]

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?

Perhaps, when most people truly know?

[Dafoe]

Well indeed, not one idol to be found...

[Prismatic567]

Are Christians, Muslims and atheists idolaters?

Scholars think so and so do I.

http://bigthink.com/videos/what-is-god-2-2

Scriptures warn against idol worship yet that is exactly what Christian and Muslims do.

If you can talk about or name your God, you are an idolater. Do you realize that?

God is often thought of as an ideal.

I think that atheists would also fit into the idolater description because they idolize the notion that there is no God and have chosen that as their ideal.

Agnostics seem to be the only ones who are not idolaters because, like Gnostic Christians, they do not mind saying, I don’t know or only speaking of things they know to be facts.

Regards
DL

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.

[surreptitious75]

That does not negate that that ideal however you wish to describe it is still his ideal mental position and he idolizes it and holds it supreme

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

Neither can theism which indicates that agnostic or Gnostic is the best position

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

[Karpel Tunnel]

this should be fun.

[Arcturus Descending]

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?

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.

[Greatest I am]

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?

Perhaps, when most people truly know?

Indeed.

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjRy29R4gP8

https://vimeo.com/25149893

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Are Christians, Muslims and atheists idolaters?

Scholars think so and so do I.

http://bigthink.com/videos/what-is-god-2-2

Scriptures warn against idol worship yet that is exactly what Christian and Muslims do.

If you can talk about or name your God, you are an idolater. Do you realize that?

God is often thought of as an ideal.

I think that atheists would also fit into the idolater description because they idolize the notion that there is no God and have chosen that as their ideal.

Agnostics seem to be the only ones who are not idolaters because, like Gnostic Christians, they do not mind saying, I don’t know or only speaking of things they know to be facts.

Regards
DL

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.

The differences in thinking is irrelevant to the idea that we all place our thinking system above all else and are thus idolizing them.

Give a listen to this poet as he take the semantics out of the argument before he goes into preach mode.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkZg1ZflpJs

If you keep things simple, my point is easier to see.

If you do not put whatever thinking system you follow, your ideology, as your idolized ideal, then what system do you think is better and why are you not thinking that way?

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

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

Theism of the supernatural kind. I agree.

Theism that put's man above God, I think is the way to go, which is basically what was going on before Christtians and Muslims began reading their myths literally.

Have a look at how much more intelligent things were before literalism.

http://bigthink.com/videos/what-is-god-2-2

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

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?

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.

Be it a statue or whatever mental picture a person forms of his God or ideology, it is the thinking pattern/ideology which is idolized. The various groups mentioned in the O.P. all hold fast to their ideologies and are thus idol worshipers.

"What kind of an idolater are you?"

The kind that might not be an idolater in the real sense of that word.

My ideal and ideology tells me to take what I have, raise the bar of excellence and seek anew. In that sense, Gnostic Christians cannot ever be satisfied or be idol worshipers as we are never satisfied and always looking to dethrone our God and replace him with a better one.

I guess one could see that as my idolizing my ideology, of not idolizing my ideology, as it should be seeking to evolve to something better.

Please follow that link just above to get a better picture of my thinking.

Regards
DL

[Karpel Tunnel]

Idolatry literally means the worship of an "idol", also known as a cult image, in the form of a physical image, such as a statue or icon. In Abrahamic religions, namely Christianity, Islam and Judaism, idolatry connotes the worship of something or someone other than God as if it were God.

[phyllo]

[Ecmandu]

As they say, a being who wants to be worshipped isn't worthy of worship. To explain what this phrase means: don't worship!!

[phyllo]

As they say, a being who wants to be worshipped isn't worthy of worship. To explain what this phrase means: don't worship!!

Maybe God doesn't care about being worshiped.

[Karpel Tunnel]

As they say, a being who wants to be worshipped isn't worthy of worship. To explain what this phrase means: don't worship!!

Well, at least we got rid of that idolatry issue and now we have moved on to a new idea: worshiping is bad. New thread?

Worship meaning

worship
ˈwəːʃɪp/Skicka
noun
1.
the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity.

and so...

reverence
ˈrɛv(ə)r(ə)ns/Skicka
noun
1.
deep respect for someone or something.

and

adoration
adəˈreɪʃ(ə)n/Skicka
noun
1.
deep love and respect.

Sounds terrible.

Who is this 'they'`?

Me personally, I am not a big fan or worshipping, not because respecting and loving are bad but because one is told what to feel, rather the feeling coming naturally from the relationship. That's me.

[Arcturus Descending]

phyllo

Maybe God doesn't care about being worshiped.

There just may be a lot of truth within that but would it actually matter?

Human beings probably evolved to have no choice but to worship. We realize our imperfections/frailties, smallness (for lack of a better word) and having something or someone to worship raises us above our picayune natures to where we come to be in relationship with whatever we experience as being the sublime.

Love, Lust, God, Worship probably all from the same part of the brain (?) ~ we are powerless to transcend them but do we have to soar so high and would it not be a wise thing to choose in a more harmless way?

[phyllo]

There just may be a lot of truth within that but would it actually matter?

It matters in Ecmandu's argument/reasoning. How he can possibly know if God wants to be worshiped is beyond me.

Human beings probably evolved to have no choice but to worship.

Oh, I think there is a choice being made.

We realize our imperfections/frailties, smallness (for lack of a better word) and having something or someone to worship raises us above our picayune natures to where we come to be in relationship with whatever we experience as being the sublime.

Sure. Worship satisfies some want or need in the worshiper.

Love, Lust, God, Worship probably all from the same part of the brain (?) ~ we are powerless to transcend them but do we have to soar so high and would it not be a wise thing to choose in a more harmless way?

Worship itself doesn't seem particularly harmful but in the extreme, it can lead to places that one ought not to go.