An agnostic and an atheist critique "popular athiesm"

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Plato. That is what the Epicurans found nuts about him. Yes, they acknowledged senses CAN deceive, but they're all we've got in any event, they claimed. Again, see Lucretius' On the Nature of the Universe.

And this is the point of Gadamer, Derrida and even Heiddeger, to some extent about how our culture and senses provide useful information but are not fool proof.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by All-American

Here comes the greek:

The word "atheist" comes from the greek word "theos" (Θεός) and the prefix "ἀ" meaning "without." Agnostic attaches the same prefix to the word "gnosis" (γνώσις), which is greek for knowledge.

By definition, then: an atheist is one who believes there is no god. An agnostic is one who has no knowledge of a god.

Semantics. They both have no knowledge of a god. That's as far as they go.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

It was a rhetorical question. It was Socrates, but of course later quoted by Plato, as well.

" 'the view of things by means of the eyes is full of deception, as also is that through the ears and the other senses; persuading an abandonment of these so far as it is not absolutely necessary to use them, and advising the soul to be collected and concentrated within itself, and to believe nothing else than herself, with respect to what she herself understands of things that have a real subsistence; and to consider nothing true which she views through the medium of others, and which differ under different aspects; for that a thing of this kind is sensible and visible, but that what she herself perceives is intelligible and invisible.' "

From the Phaedo of Socrates.

I think what distinguishes Plato and Socrates is Plato believed you could get beyond the senses by living a certain kind of life and find real truth--kind of like Waters' spiritual sense. Socrates was skeptical of everything, including the senses, and certianly of a spiritual sense. He accepted nothing; for him investigation was infinite.

[BarbaraGordon]

To get back to the topic,

For those of you interested in the humanist/theist movement, I have found these discussions highly informative. (They are LONG videos, but a recommended reading list is provided.)

http://beyondbelief2006.org/About/

The discussion is on theism and science and whether the two can coexist.

They were kind enough to allow a couple of theists speak.

I personally like to experience the thoughts of thinkers, regardless of whether I agree with their points.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I think what distinguishes Plato and Socrates is Plato believed you could get beyond the senses by living a certain kind of life and find real truth--kind of like Waters' spiritual sense. Socrates was skeptical of everything, including the senses, and certianly of a spiritual sense. He accepted nothing; for him investigation was infinite.

We know very little of what Socrates thought because he left no written works. We basically know Socrates through Plato and one other contemporary author, starts with an Xenophon, and the plays of Aristophanes.

To attribute much to what Socrates believed is folly, because he didn't leave a written body of work.

[il Padrino Ute]

There are no athiests in foxholes.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Semantics. They both have no knowledge of a god. That's as far as they go.

Not semantics. Definitions. Semantics is twisting the definition to make it say what you want it to say.

[BlueHair]

Originally Posted by Archaea

We know very little of what Socrates thought because he left no written works. We basically know Socrates through Plato and one other contemporary author, starts with an Xenophon, and the plays of Aristophanes.

To attribute much to what Socrates believed is folly, because he didn't leave a written body of work.

Just to play devil's advocate: Couldn't we say the same thing about Jesus? Everything I know of him is written by a third party.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

We know very little of what Socrates thought because he left no written works. We basically know Socrates through Plato and one other contemporary author, starts with an Xenophon, and the plays of Aristophanes.

To attribute much to what Socrates believed is folly, because he didn't leave a written body of work.

Right. Just like Jesus. At least we know who it really is purporting to quote Socrates. This is only one way in which the accounts of Socrates' life and quotations of his sayings are more reliable than the Gospels. Also, I've got my spiritual sense to verify the ancient Greek accounts.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BlueHair

Just to play devil's advocate: Couldn't we say the same thing about Jesus? Everything I know of him is written by a third party.

Absolutely, but not identical.

Plato never states that these are Socrates' teachings. Plato espouses his teachings through his teacher.

My point was actually critical of Seattle for him to differentiate between Plato's beliefs and those of Socrates. We do NOT know or have any reason to believe Socrates differed with Plato.

Unlike Plato, the writers of the Gospels purport to espouse Christ's teachings. That is a majore distinction.