Athiest or Agnostic?

by real one 168 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Narkissos

  hamilcarr & BTS,

  If we identify the emergence of Jewish monotheism stricto sensu with Deutero-Isaiah, then it strikes me that it presupposes typical Persian dualism but attempts at surpassing it (cf. Isaiah 45:7). In a sense, it is born from this very attempt.

  But this "pure," non-dualistic (or, better perhaps, meta-dualistic) monotheism, is essentially tautological: whatever happens, "good" or "bad," God does. Not very functional as a historical religion. Not suitable for political, or even ethical, purposes. Whence the historical recession into dualism.

  From another perspective, the monotheism of Deutero-Isaiah also builds on a literally a-theistic strategy, which was bound to hit back in the long run: the (other) gods do not exist. From this perspective, too, incipient monotheism has at least as much in common with a-theism (the negation of gods) as it has with poly-theism (making one god the only one, thereby mutating him into more than a god -- God).

  On edit: I put a Nietzsche quote here but then remembered an earlier thread where it can be found, too:

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/134649/2.ashx
• 

  jaguarbass

  They way I crunch the data. Everyones an agnostic.

  The more militant varieties call themselves atheist

  and theist.

  No one has proven atheist or theist to me, yet.

  So I conclude everyones agnostic.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  It's dual at the very fundamental level, be it ity or ism.

  Don't forget our ships are invincible

  But you can only take territory on land....

  
• 

  Rapunzel

  The term agnostic is derived from the Greek prefix, a [meaning "lacking" or "without"] and gnosis [meaning "knowledge']. So, an agnostic is anyone lacking knowledge [about the existence or non-existence of God]. If a person accepts Kant's definition of knowledge as a subjectively and objectively sufficient degree of assent, then everyone - whether theist or non-theist - is indeed an agnostic. As Kant could arguably be considered the greatest "modern" [post-Renaissance] philosopher of the Western world, I would tend to grant his ideas some legitimacy.
• 

  inrainbows

  Burn

  But you can only take territory on land....

  Go tell that to the Dutch...
• 

  Deputy Dog

  Nark

  DD, You're quite good at escaping questions, I hope you don't escape the following one: Were the people referred to in Romans 1 (the part you quoted) theists or atheists by your definition?

  Every person in the world.

  HS

  Though Romans 1:20 discusses two aspects of God's 'qualities' - His/Her eternal power and divine nature, it would be disengenous to say the least that you were not suggesting that his/her 'character' was not also enmeshed in this issue. I will quote your own posts as evidence:

  Romans 1:19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

  Everyone knows about God.

  I'm not sure why or how you read "character" into my comment. If I were to comment about God's character, I would point to pasages about Christ.

  Perhaps you might clarify what you mean by the 'nature' of God?

  I suppose you could include the creation of the concepts of good and evil in "Divine nature" with respect to this verse. This passage is dealing with God's nature as Creator.
• 

  THE GLADIATOR

  BurnThe Ships

  Who is that pathetic, tired looking Gladiator wearing that ridiculous Galea? He seems to be holding what looks like a large toothpick - and he is holding his Scutum all wrong.

  Habet, hoc habet (he has had it)
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Who is that pathetic, tired looking Gladiator wearing that ridiculous Galea? He seems to be holding what looks like a large toothpick - and he is holding his Scutum all wrong.

  Habet, hoc habet ( he has had it)

  That is not a gladiator, but an hastatus or princeps, one of the first or second lines of Roman infantry. Probably a principes because of the onrateness of his galea. That is not a scutum but an aspis.

  This is a scutum.

  The aspis is smaller and oval.

  That "toothpick" is a pilum, and is designed so that it can only be used once. The legionaire threw it at the enemy, and the shaft would bend from the impact, thereby making it useless for the enemy to pick it up and use it again in return.

  And he has not had it, but looks vigilant and ready for action. His galea is superb and is the height of Roman military fashion. De gustibus non est disputandum

  Ardeo Navis
• 

  Narkissos

  DD:

  Were the people referred to in Romans 1 (the part you quoted) theists or atheists by your definition?

  Every person in the world.

  Actually Gentiles, from the context (compare chapter 2).

  Anyway, since most of them were "theists" by your definition (the influence of "atheistic" philosophy like that of Democritus or Epicurus was minimal), this passage has nothing to do with a specific "sin of atheism". It's not about denying the existence of god(s) but "misconstruing" "God" as "gods" and/or worshiping him/them the "wrong" way.

  Scepticism or "agnosticism" about the gods was often regarded in a more favourable way in early Christian tradition than polytheism (cf. Leolaia's post on Acts 17, where agnostos theos is probably misinterpreted in a somewhat "agnostic" sense), as the adequate response of actual "ignorance" for the lack of "revelation" (cf. Kierkegaard's treatment of Socrates, which only makes that explicit). That is, until the rise of "natural theology" in middle-age Catholicism, on Aristotelian grounds.

  That's why I believe your making the opposition of theism (of any kind) and atheism the essential philosophical "border" is unwarranted, not only from the perspective of general history of ideas, but from the perspective of early Christian tradition as well.
• 

  Deputy Dog

  Nark

  What would you do with Pantheism? Creation rather than Creator.