Atheism

@cicerone imposter,

They are not at all idols. An idea is a physical object to a materialist. Otherwise he has to deal with "soul" and he can't. So he is stuck with the physical object which reflexes in behaviour according to the particular forms of the object in the mind/brain/body.

But I think it is outside of your knowledge kit box ci. If your knowledge kit box rolled down a mountain side it would sound like an oil barrel with a brick in it.

2 Replies

@spendius,

Spendi, They are idols. You probably haven't noticed all the idols in churches from jesus on the cross, to the virgin Mary, to all the disciples. Many of those idols have halos around their heads whether it's a painting or a statue.

By all accounts and definitions in any language, they are idols.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I believe Stupendousness will be stuffed and mounted on the pubs bar when he goes... make a good Idol for his pub friends ~~~~~~~ What did you say??? " he already is" ;-)

0 Replies

@spendius,

Why are atheists so lacking in knowledge about religion ? Perhaps they have made a faith based decision to NOT believe .

Someone should tell them about the idols that people thought were the god come down to Earth . The Greeks had all sorts of mechanical devices and trickery to convince people a god inhabited the idol . That is the idolatry that is banned... not statues to help focus prayer .

1 Reply

@Ionus,

I'm talking about mental states apt for bringing about certain behaviour Io. Your Aussie professor, D.M. Armstrong and his Materialist Theory of Mind. Ideas, thoughts, feelings etc being physical objects. Dynamically changing collections of atoms, molecules, electrical forces and whatever else. If they are not physical objects then they are immaterial and that's "soul" which atheists can't deal with.

Physical images such as statues, paintings, sound and light patterns, ritual movements and fragrances are designed to stimulate minds to have certain ideas. Obviously ideas to keep a priestly caste in business justified on the basis of what happens if a priestly caste is not in business and the collective wisdom is made up "on the hoof" by politicians.

Idols in the Biblical sense were objects thought to be the God Itself rather than a representation. As you suggest. They are not icons.

1 Reply

@spendius,

The Second Commandment reads--

Quote:

You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.You shall not bow down to them or worship them;

Which has an ambiguity. The first part prohibits pictorial representation of any object whatsoever. Which might explain Islamic filigree. The decorator could claim they were just pretty abstract patterns none of which resemble anything in nature.

But if the first part is interpreted in the light of the second part then the prohibition applied only to representations made to be worshipped. And being worshipped. Different tribes interpreting it in these two ways would produce different art forms which would become established tradition and still alive.

Further north the representation of people was stylised into a pretty pattern and didn't depict the person. So icons look quite alike despite the people represented being all sorts of shapes and sizes. Which would avoid the ugly sods being depicted warts and all.

A later interpretation simply prohibited depiction of animals. Flowers and trees being okay. The High Priests in each district deciding what to prohibit.

We show the pimple/s no matter where they are located.

I was talking about mental objects. A far more complex subject. They cannot be idols unless they are worshipping themselves. Which the Greek myth says is fatal. A condition now ameliorated, delayed I mean, by scientific medical practice which thus has a vested interest in promoting mental objects which worship themselves.

1 Reply

@spendius,

You have a great sense of yourself; to interpret the bible as you see it. Your lack of comprehension of language makes you into an imbecile, because your interpretation is not universal, and lacks common sense. It makes you into a laughing stock.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

7 ad homs from the man who admonished someone for using one. Sheesh!!

What can anybody say? According to Google this is a "prestigious American debate site". What on earth is shite like that doing on it. It's meaningless. What does "not universal" mean?

1 Reply

@spendius,

I'm addressing directly through explanations why I use adhoms on you! Another one of your inability to understand the English language.

My attacks on you are relevant, and therefore not considered ad homs.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Show me the relevance of--

Quote:

You have a great sense of yourself; to interpret the bible as you see it. Your lack of comprehension of language makes you into an imbecile, because your interpretation is not universal, and lacks common sense. It makes you into a laughing stock.

as a response to my post on "idolatry" and I'll show my arse in Bloomingdale's window. It only has relevance to yourself.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendi, I'll post it again, and bold the words that is relevant to the whys my charge against you makes sense.

Quote:

Quote:

You have a great sense of yourself; to interpret the bible as you see it. Your lack of comprehension of language makes you into an imbecile, because your interpretation is not universal, and lacks common sense. It makes you into a laughing stock.

Show credible proof that supports your interpretation of the bible.

You wrote,

Quote:

The Second Commandment reads--

"You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.You shall not bow down to them or worship them; "

Your opinion,

Quote:
Which has an ambiguity. The first part prohibits pictorial representation of any object whatsoever. Which might explain Islamic filigree.
Quote:
The decorator could claim they were just pretty abstract patterns none of which resemble anything in nature.

There is no "ambiguity." You follow it with,
Quote:
Which might explain Islamic filigree. The decorator could claim they were just pretty abstract patterns none of which resemble anything in nature.

It does not explain Islamic filigree; it only shows your ability at imagination that doesn't exist.

Then, you add,
Quote:
The decorator could claim they were just pretty abstract patterns none of which resemble anything in nature.

What "decorator" are you talking about? Another creation from your imagination that doesn't exist, and then adding "were just pretty abstract patterns none of which resemble anything in nature." A throw-away opinion without any basis in fact or evidence.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Show credible proof that supports your interpretation of the bible.

It wasn't my interpretation of the Bible. I was merely offering a suggestion in relation to variations on how the 2nd commandment might be read in various places and at different times and how that affects art. It was in no way intended to be definitive. It is a very complex matter. You're never going to even suspect that there is something in the matter you don't already know about and you know nothing about it except maybe that you have gawped at it as a tourist.

The abstract filigree design in Islamic decoration. The nearer to lifelike in the Greek icons and moving further north and later in time the accurate representation of life in European portraiture with perspective and shades of light as in Rembrandt which was a capital offence in Biblical days.

The subject was idols and idolatry. Which you misunderstood in your usual impulsive manner. And you attempted to cover up a woeful ignorance with a screed of ad homs which meant nothing. You don't think there is anything for you to know but that doesn't mean all readers here are in that sad state.

Of course there is an ambiguity in the 2nd commandment (Exodus 20. 4-6) and I explained what it was.

What decorator am I talking about!!!! What else but the guys that produced the art objects? It has nothing to do with my imagination. You are stuck in some rut of your own which doesn't recognise the life of other peoples.

No wonder you make your sister cry.

1 Reply

@spendius,

It's a complex matter - only to you. The verse from the bible is straight forward and concise in its meaning. Your so-called suggestion is way out in left field where nobody will be able to see your ball floating by. You failed to say on the outset that what you suggest your prose was not meant to be definitive. Back-tracking in your case is futile.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

How many of your posts are attacking a person ? Were you abused as a child ?

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

The verse from the bible is straight forward and concise in its meaning.

Which version of the Bible ? What wording do other versions use ? What was the original source ? Who translated it and how controversial was the translation ? Wouldnt all this have been better than your personal attacks that show nothing except your inferiority complex ?

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

What are you trying to do, CI, start another forty pages of this stuff?
You post like a yo-yo, and I am on your side, far as I know, of the issues.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

This is like automatons posting, wherein the boldest of us original posters get to butt in on occasion.

You, CI, foster all this.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

Quote:

You, CI, foster all this.

No he doesn't osso. The facts foster it. He cannot allow the immaterialty of thoughts and feelings because it undercuts his whole position. And your's. But he also cannot allow the materiality of thoughts and feelings as transient objects consisting of atoms, molecules and electrical impulses in dynamic operation because that makes him, and you, a bag of tricks designed by socialising agents over which he has no choice or control. A conditioned robot in other words.

Imagine if you will a beam of light playing on a screen. In between the light and the screen are placed a large number of coloured filters on wheels of varying sizes all rotating at high speed and interfering with the light beam in a series of combinations. Thoughts and feelings might be likened to the changing colour on the screen. An object. Physical. That's what the atheist has to accept that his or her thoughts are like. Only far more complex. Irreducibly complex I will hazard. Attempts to simplify the complexity must result in indoctrination.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

That's what the atheist has to accept that his or her thoughts are like.

What do the theist have to accept that his or her thoughts are like? Like a god or someone in a disillusioned state?

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Using a certain sort of science alone the theist has to accept it as well.

Your second sentence is not worth bothering with. Blurts are not debate points.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know