Atheists are polytheists in disguise

[Link]

Agnostics say their neither believe or deny. When asked about existance of God they say I don't know. Do you deny the existance of God?

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Agnostics say their neither believe or deny. When asked about existance of God they say I don't know. Do you deny the existance of God?

Yes, but this is only a belief. I'm not saying "I know for certain that there is no god", simply that I believe it's massively more likely that there is no god. This is clearly an atheist position rather than an agnostic one.

Incidentally, I was an agnostic until the age of around eighteen, when I started studying philosophy seriously. Theism is now largely discredited in the philosophical community, and there are currently no philosophers of any standing who believe in god, as far as I know.

Peace

 

[duskiness]

and there are currently no philosophers of any standing who believe in god, as far as I know.

would you consider someone who got Kluge Prize a "philosopher of any standing"?
n.

 

[Link]

Greetings,


Yes, but this is only a belief. I'm not saying "I know for certain that there is no god", simply that I believe it's massively more likely that there is no god. This is clearly an atheist position rather than an agnostic one.

Incidentally, I was an agnostic until the age of around eighteen, when I started studying philosophy seriously. Theism is now largely discredited in the philosophical community, and there are currently no philosophers of any standing who believe in god, as far as I know.

Peace

salam

Go to Iran then, you will see philisophers who are all monothiest. Look at their arguments and look the arguments of athiests. You can't know who is a better philisopher unless you are 100% sure there is no proof of God (which is impossible to know) or that the proofs of monothiest are wrong (which can be possible depending on their arguments) or you are sure of arguments of the monothiests.

peace

 

[czgibson]

Greetings duskiness,

would you consider someone who got Kluge Prize a "philosopher of any standing"?
n.

I would, yes.

Perhaps you are thinking of the Polish philosopher Leszek Kolakowski. He is certainly an eminent philosopher with an unimpeachable reputation.

He diagnoses a gap in modern consciousness, a yearning that many people share, which used to be occupied by religion. He is keenly aware of the decline of religion in mainstream Western society (and certainly among the philosophical community), and he calls for a resurgence of religious values, or at the very least something to replace religion.

However, regarding his own position, he is cagey (See page 5 (or 86) of this document, for example). Some think he is an atheist, but in that case it is unclear what sort of religious revival he would like to see. If you have evidence that he is a theist, then by all means show it; I would welcome your correction.

Or perhaps you're thinking of another recipient of the award?

Greetings Link,

Go to Iran then, you will see philisophers who are all monothiest.

Are you sure these are philosophers and not theologians?

Look at their arguments and look the arguments of athiests. You can't know who is a better philisopher unless you are 100% sure there is no proof of God (which is impossible to know) or that the proofs of monothiest are wrong (which can be possible depending on their arguments) or you are sure of arguments of the monothiests.

Let's take your points one at a time:

Firstly, there is no proof of god's existence. That is a fact, and it is not impossible to know (I'm using the word 'know' in ordinary modern parlance. Many epistemologists are not convinced that 100% certain knowledge is possible, but that's by the by.)

Secondly, there are arguments for god's existence, but no proofs of it. As I've said on the forum before, I think some Muslims use a different definition of the word 'proof' than the average professor of logic does.

Thirdly, I believe I'm familiar with most of the standard theistic arguments. If you think I may have missed some of them, or there are some that you'd particularly like to bring forward, then by all means do so.

Peace

 

[duskiness]

Hi czgibson!
sorry for such a late replay...

Perhaps you are thinking of the Polish philosopher Leszek Kolakowski.

yup...

Some think he is an atheist

for sure he was an atheist, and a communist as well. But that was "young Kołakowski". the "old one" is famous for his critic of communism. And much "warmer" attitiude towards religion, God..etc.

If you have evidence that he is a theist, then by all means show it; I would welcome your correction.

i doubt i can show you any evidance. i can give some qoutes, BUT sources are in polish and translation is - unfortunately - mine:
"no, one shouldn't think that Kołakowski - he is not an exeption here - returned to Church. His God is a God of philosophers"
"As it was noticed in "Gazeta Wyborcza" (biggest polish newspaper -n.) even when Kołakowski starts talking about sex or laziness, he quickly associate everthing with God"
(source- it's an article in student magazine about Kołakowski)

"Christianity makes things easier, thanks to intermediary, one with two natures - Jesus Christ, who is a true God for Christians: unlike Father we know His name, know His life and probably noone doubts that He walked on Earth, prayed to his Father in heaven, and preached. Incarnation, idea of "Son of God", Trinity are the most puzzeling parts of Christian theology, but when we face Jesus, who we know from Gosples- we can forget about all these theological mysteries. Jesus wont examine us from (about??) theology, He loves us, with our indigence and weakness. He wants us to love Him, and orders us to pray to Father. Rest may be know to us "on the other shore". Or maybe not even then"
form Leszek Kołakowski "Mini wykłady o maxi sprawach" chapter "About God"

Kołakowski has aslo written book about conflict in theology about idea of grace ("Bóg nic nie jest na dłużny" - "God owes us nothing"), writes aritcle about "can devile be saved?". He aslo is writing to the catholic magazine "Tygodnik powszechny"

As you can see i have no evidence. But i can say that it seems to me that he is much closer to being theist than atheist

However, regarding his own position, he is cagey (See page 5 (or 86) of this document, for example).

I know, today he never answer question whether he belives in God or not. He did answer this question in a way you do, when he was younger.
BTW: thanks for article

Or perhaps you're thinking of another recipient of the award?

hehe- no, because P.Ricoeur died lat year. But he was aslo theist

take care
n.