Atheism and the Greek (Gnostic/Egptian/Hermetic) Model of God!

docphin5

Well-known member
That wasn't the point of the analogy. The point was that in neither case do you need to be able to name all of the entities in a class to rationally conclude that none of them are real.
it is irrational to reject something that one knows nothing about. he is allowed to be irrational just as the fundies are, but it does not make for a good discussion.

Using your analogy. If you claim Bilbo Baggins is God then I will reject your claim because the author of the story never claimed he was. But I don't reject 10,000 gods who I have never heard of as LHA claims because I don't know anything about them. I don't think anyone on the planet even knows 10,000 gods, so he shows he is not sincere.
 
Last edited:

docphin5

Well-known member
There's more to the Gnostic Christians than just a Greek model of God as even God in orthodox Christianity is a result of Judaeo-Hellenistic syncretism. For example atheists don't go on about salvific hidden knowledge or the Demiurge.
I know that there are many things that divide what atheists and gnostic Christians believe but sometimes it helps to try and find that common ground no matter how small a sliver it is. It was my attempt to identify a point of agreement before talking about what we don't agree on. Just me being me. Ha ha!
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
it is irrational to reject something that one knows nothing about. he is allowed to be irrational just as the fundies are, but it does not make for a good discussion.

Using your analogy. If you claim Bilbo Baggins is God then I will reject your claim because the author of the story never claimed he was. But I don't reject 10,000 gods who I have never heard of as LHA claims because I don't know anything about them. I don't think anyone on the planet even knows 10,000 gods, so he shows he is not sincere.
You're still missing the point of the analogy: We don't have to be able to name all members of a class to be rational in judging them all to be non-existent. It is enough to understand the class itself, and to be aware of the lack of evidence for any entities of that type. We don't have to be able to name all the gods that have been believed in throughout history to judge them all to be fictional, just as you don't have to be able to name every fire-breathing dragon that has been written about to know that they are all made-up.
 
D

Diogenes

Guest
I know that there are many things that divide what atheists and gnostic Christians believe but sometimes it helps to try and find that common ground no matter how small a sliver it is. It was my attempt to identify a point of agreement before talking about what we don't agree on. Just me being me. Ha ha!

The point was more that even orthodox Christians use a Greek model of God for the most part.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
The point was more that even orthodox Christians use a Greek model of God for the most part.
If you say so. I don't find that to be the case at all but since orthodoxy has so many contradictions in what they believe then your statement could be true depending on what verse one is using and what day of the year it is.

The definition I was using came from Dungen at <http://sofiatopia.org/equiaeon/divine.htm>

  1. Semitic model : God is One & Alone. He, the sole God, is an unknown and unknowable Divine Person, Who Wills good & evil alike (cf. Judaism & Islam), calling man to do what is good ;
  2. Greek model : God is a Principle of principles, the best of the best (Plato), the unmoved mover (Aristotle), the One even ecstasy does not reveal, impersonal and in no way evil or tainted by absence or privation of being (Plotinus), the First Intellect (Ibn Sina), a "God of the philosophers" (Whitehead). This abstract God figures in intellectual theologies, in humanism & in atheism. In the latter, by the "alpha privativum" of the Divine, as in a-theism, an absolute term is produced, but this time by negation instead of by affirmation ;
  3. Christian model : God is One essence in Three Persons : God the Father revealed by God's incarnated Son, Jesus Christ, because, in and with God the deifying Holy Spirit. A God of Love, never impersonal, always without evil (pure of heart) and sole cause of goodness (Christianity) ;
  4. Oriental model : God, The All, is One sheer Being present in every part of creation in terms of a manifold of impersonal & personal Divine Self-manifestations (theophanies), as we see in Ancient Egypt, Alexandrian Hermetism (gnosis), Paganism, Hinduism (Vedanta), Taoism & Hermeticism.
 
Last edited:

docphin5

Well-known member
You're still missing the point of the analogy: We don't have to be able to name all members of a class to be rational in judging them all to be non-existent. It is enough to understand the class itself, and to be aware of the lack of evidence for any entities of that type. We don't have to be able to name all the gods that have been believed in throughout history to judge them all to be fictional, just as you don't have to be able to name every fire-breathing dragon that has been written about to know that they are all made-up.
It is irrational to reject something you know nothing about. Just because you invented a "class" which you arbitrarily lumped together does not make it any more rational. You are no different than fundies who lumped science into a "class" which they reject.
 
D

Diogenes

Guest
If you say so. I don't find that to be the case at all but since orthodoxy has so many contradictions in what they believe then your statement could be true depending on what verse one is using and what day of the year it is.

One of the most central figure in Christianity theology, Aquinas, merged Aristotle and the Bible in the Summa. The Kalaam itself is from Islamic Aristotelanism. Philo was a middle Platonist and the Logos in John is from Stoicism.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
It is irrational to reject something you know nothing about. Just because you invented a "class" which you arbitrarily lumped together does not make it any more rational. You are no different than fundies who lumped science into a "class" which they reject.
All leprechauns are made-up, regardless of whether or not I can name them all. All Tolkien characters are made-up, regardless of whether or not I can name them all. All fire-breathing dragons are fictional, regardless of whether or not I can name them all. Again, understand the class and it is possible to be justified in rejecting the class as a whole without being able to name all of its members. This really shouldn't be a controversial point.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
All leprechauns are made-up, regardless of whether or not I can name them all. All Tolkien characters are made-up, regardless of whether or not I can name them all. All fire-breathing dragons are fictional, regardless of whether or not I can name them all. Again, understand the class and it is possible to be justified in rejecting the class as a whole without being able to name all of its members. This really shouldn't be a controversial point.
Nobody is claiming Bilbo Baggins to be God. so the fact that you lump him into your arbitrary made up "class" with the God of Christianity shows your lack of sincerity. Do you not get that? It is as if you have blinders on. You are making the same mistake as fundies who deny science as if it is a "class" of misinformation being perpetrated against evangelical Christians. It is arbitrary and irrational.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
One of the most central figure in Christianity theology, Aquinas, merged Aristotle and the Bible in the Summa. The Kalaam itself is from Islamic Aristotelanism. Philo was a middle Platonist and the Logos in John is from Stoicism.
I agree that Christianity evolved from multiple religions going all the way back to the Egyptians. But if you ask the average Christian on the street who God is they are probably going to point to Jehovah in the Old Testament and he is nothing like the Greek model of the divine. The God of Jesus in the New Testament corollate more with the Greek model which was my point. Too many contradictions in Christian orthodoxy to make sense of it. I know because I was in it for a long time before I started critically analyzing what it taught.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Nobody is claiming Bilbo Baggins to be God. so the fact that you lump him into your arbitrary made up "class" with the God of Christianity shows your lack of sincerity. Do you not get that? It is as if you have blinders on. You are making the same mistake as fundies who deny science as if it is a "class" of misinformation being perpetrated against evangelical Christians. It is arbitrary and irrational.
I'm not putting God in the same class as Bilbo. You are missing my point. Again. All gods belong to the class of immaterial supernatural beings. If we have good reason to think that no such beings exist then we can rationally conclude that all such beings are imaginary, regardless of whether or not we can name each individual one of them that humans have dreamed up throughout history.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
I'm not putting God in the same class as Bilbo. You are missing my point. Again. All gods belong to the class of immaterial supernatural beings. If we have good reason to think that no such beings exist then we can rationally conclude that all such beings are imaginary, regardless of whether or not we can name each individual one of them that humans have dreamed up throughout history.
Your generalization of all gods to be immaterial shows a lack of understanding. The Son of God in the Christian religion is the “sum of all things” which makes him very much material. The Son of God produced life from nonlife. That is a miracle by some standards although natural. There is a lot that you refuse to see and until you investigate these things then your “good reason to think” this or that is flawed. Your generalizing in order to arrive at a predetermined conclusion. It is called bias, parochialism, and partisan. It is your right to be those things but it brings you no closer to the truth.
 
Last edited:

Nouveau

Well-known member
Your generalization of all gods to be immaterial shows a lack of understanding. The Son of God in the Christian religion is the “sum of all things” which makes him very much material. Until you investigate these things then your “good reason to think” this or that is flawed. Your generalizing in order to arrive at a predetermined conclusion. It is called bias, parochialism, and partisan. It is your right to be those things but it brings you no closer to the truth.
The Christian God is immaterial, even if he took on a material form for a brief time. You're not actually addressing my point, which is understandable as it really is obvious that we can rationally reject all Gods regardless of whether or not we can name them all.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
The Christian God is immaterial, even if he took on a material form for a brief time. You're not actually addressing my point, which is understandable as it really is obvious that we can rationally reject all Gods regardless of whether or not we can name them all.
Your point is based on a false assumption. The son of God is the manifest form of God. So the divine is in creation. I am not addressing your point because your generalization is false. For clarification, the Son wasn’t temporarily in our world. Truly, he is our world for “christ is the sum of all things.” (Ephesians 1:10). Always has been. How can your conclusion be true when your assumptions are false? You can reject whatever you want but it does make you right based on evidence and reason.
 
Last edited:

Nouveau

Well-known member
Your point is based on a false assumption. The son of God is the manifest form of God. So the divine is in creation. I am not addressing your point because your generalization is false. For clarification, the Son wasn’t temporarily in our world. Truly, he is our world for “christ is the sum of all things.” (Ephesians 1:10). Always has been.
You are desperately trying to change the subject. Again, it is not always irrational to dismiss a class of entities without being able to name them all. This is obvious.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
You are desperately trying to change the subject. Again, it is not always irrational to dismiss a class of entities without being able to name them all. This is obvious.
It is irrational to make false assumptions and declare your conclusions must be right. First time you say something correct I will be happy to agree with you but your about 0 for 10 right now. Your argument sounds more and more like a straw man argument. You define all “10,000 gods” (whoever they might be to include bilbo baggins) as imaginary then dismiss them. Straw man! This is not a good night for you.
 
Last edited:

Nouveau

Well-known member
It is irrational to make false assumptions and declare your conclusions must be right. First time you say something correct I will be happy to agree with you but your about 0 for 10 right now.
You overstated your case by wrongly assuming we have to be able to name every entity in a class to rationally reject that class, and for whatever reason you are refusing to concede this basic point. Claiming that the Christian God is somehow 'in' material reality does not change the fact that he is essentially immaterial in nature to at least some degree. If your 'God' were purely material then it would not be included in the category that atheists are referring to when they say they reject all gods.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
You overstated your case by wrongly assuming we have to be able to name every entity in a class to rationally reject that class, and for whatever reason you are refusing to concede this basic point. Claiming that the Christian God is somehow 'in' material reality does not change the fact that he is essentially immaterial in nature to at least some degree. If your 'God' were purely material then it would not be included in the category that atheists are referring to when they say they reject all gods.
We went over this already. Your made up “class” of gods is poorly defined and does not reflect reality. It is your straw man. Your welcome to beat up on your poorly defined and imaginary class of 10,000 Gods (to include dragons and Baggins) but your conclusion is based on a false assumption. Sorry you dont get this or maybe you refuse to get it otherwise you might have to a better job defending your position.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
We went over this already. Your made up “class” of gods is poorly defined and does not reflect reality. It is your straw man. Your welcome to beat up on your poorly defined and imaginary class of 10,000 Gods (to include dragons and Baggins) but your conclusion is based on a false assumption. Sorry you dont get this or maybe you refuse to get it otherwise you might have to a better job defending your position.
Now you're just strawmanning me. I clearly did NOT include Bilbo and dragons in the class of gods. And as atheists we get to stipulate what we mean by 'god' when explaining the category that defines our position. If you want to believe in a purely material god then you can, but that is not the kind of 'god' any atheist needs to reject. Again, we can clearly be rational in rejecting a class of entities without being able to name all members of that class. Are you going to continue digging your heels in by refusing to acknowledge this obvious fact?
 
Top