Are Christians, Muslims and atheists idolaters?


I socialize in order to play with ideas and develop ideas. I’m not searching, just playing. I’m at Platonic, you see.

When I first read this, I thought the periods were for emphasis, I didn’t think you’d fly beneath the point like that. Now I see you were being facetious lulz


Fair point. I think the pop rhetoric is about false idols, which seems to be anyone other than Jesus, Saints, Apostles, etc. My main issue with idolizing Jesus is that Jesus was an example, not an unobtainable ideal. The only differences are that we perform miracles with technology and don’t raise from the grave.

I’m not too clear about how idealizing there being god is a way of being an idolater. Where’s their idol?


I saw this as your definition.

“Agnosticism does not exist in a binary between belief and nonbelief.”



That describes seeking new information which is what agnostics do.


I was stating a fact.

I see this as a misuse of the word miracle. I do get your point though.

Idols are in the only place they can exist. In the minds of individuals.



I’m more of a consequencialist when it comes to intention. My intention forms my experience of it, and that determines whether I feel as though I am seeking. It might describe to you as seeking, and certainly seeking new information can be a part of play, but can you say that I am seeking? Someobody seeking would be in motion towards a different position or moment in time. I’m in my moment, and I call it play. You see, I am motionless in this regard. I hope motion isn’t too much an abstraction or reduction for describing how intention forms experience.

Yeah, I define miracle as “when something appears to come out of nothing due to the perception that what you experience as happening is all that is happening”. So miracles are no longer miracles once you can materially explain the process behind the miracle. But yes, the point is that what was accomplished with miracles can be performed with technology.

You’re still being a little cryptic about how atheists are idolaters, so I’m going to try and expand the topic so you can help me understand. I think what happens in idolization is a form of personification. In this personification, you place new (to you) thoughts higher than your own. These thoughts come from some sort of personification of an authority on thinking. A healthy thinker would put any new thought equal to their own, no matter the source. Under my understanding, can you place an atheist as an idolater? Is my understanding an incorrect model? I always say that there are few things to understand and an infinite amount of ways to talk about them.


Technically I was saying what it isn’t, which is different from saying what it is. What I was saying that agnosticism isn’t on the fence, but had it’s own yard. A yard where you are content to not seek an answer to the mystery of god. An agnostic sought and realized there’s nothing to be seek. It goes back to how we approach falsifiability. While athiests take the “false until proven true” approach to god, agnostics take a “indeterminent until determined” approach. Ignostics are the ones who actively seek to determine, so why are you calling agnostics seekers?



I am trying to talk in a way that is understandable and have come up with the following.

What is idolized is the thinking you hold supreme. If an atheist, you hold your atheism thinking supreme. You are an idolater.

Break that logic trail if you can.

This link might drive my point home. Ignore the tail end preaching and think of the definition.




  1. a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

Ignostic: “What is ‘God’?”

I did not know ignostic was a word but it does not seem to be as you define it.

That is why I call all belief systems ideologies.

If you do can do so, it would make my thinking clearer to you.



There’s no idolisation or worship that stems from Atheism. The non-belief in a God (what atheism is) has nothing to do with worshipping ideals or idols just as the non-belief in the tooth fairy has nothing to do with idol worship. There’s simply no logical connection.

Gnosticism/Agnosticism has to do with whether you purport to know something is the case or not. Agnostic Atheist’s do not believe in God, but do not claim to know he does not exist. A Gnostic Atheist on the other hand would claim to know that God does not exist. Atheism and Agnosticism are not two different points on the same scale, they are points on two different scales.

The idea that nothing is real unless it is falsifiable is only argued by a few atheists who don’t really know what they are talking about. For starters the people who argue this are getting confused between falsification; the demarcation between science and non-science, and verificationism; the claim that statements that are not empirically verifiable are meaningless. The former has little to do with an existence of a God, the latter rejects God as he is empirically unverifiable. I would guess that a lot of Atheists like myself are not verificationists. So the idea that Atheists hold this as an ideal isn’t true.


All of us have thinking system we think are the ideal. If not, we would seek a different ideal.

Take all the semantics out as this poet does before he goes into his preachy mode, and you will see that we all, except for agnostics and Gnostic Christians, generally speaking, who perpetually seek to better their views, hold fast, adore and in a sense worship our thinking system. If not we would not think of it as our ideal.



We don’t though. Worship, God and Idolisation all have specific meanings, none of them mean having “a thinking system”. I can claim that everyone is Greek If I expand the word Greek to include anyone who was born. I might say “Those Italians who claim not to be Greek were born so therefore they are Greek” based on this definition. In reality though that is not what Greek means; likewise the words Worship, God and Idolisation do not mean what the person in the video has claimed. They mean something different.


It all means holding fast to whatever thinking system you have, which is where you store all of your thinking systerms.

The bottom line is that thinking systems are held as our highest ideal.

I guess that you did not listen to that link enough to get you out of semantics.

What ideology do you follow and hold as your highest ideal, and how would you describe your holding it above all others?

That word you use as your descriptor could be anything from respect to like, love or idolization.



Holding certain ideas higher than others is simply not the same thing as God, Worship or Idolisation. In the same way torture is not the same thing as feeding someone ice cream. The person in the video is just using an equivocation fallacy to discredit arguments against religion. Again, these words have specific meanings.


It is if you ignore the semantics and see it as an ideal or whjat you hold to your highest level. It seems you cannot. That is why you cannot put an adjective to it.

Your analogy also makes no sense so I guess that is a reaction to you not being able to put an adjective like love or adore to your highest ideal.

I do not know where you might want to go from here.



If, in any case, atheists are idolaters, they shouldn’t give a shit, because the only being telling them that doing so is wrong is a being they don’t believe in.


True that they do not believe in imaginary Gods, they are not that dim.

They do have secular laws and their own common moral sense which tells then how barbaric and backwards theistic law is.

All who have a decent moral sense will reject the laws of the vile Gods on our menu.



No. Am I an idolater if I talk about or name my friend? Of course not. If this is not the case for people, why should it be the case for God?

The Christian God is a person, not an ideal.

I am more than happy to admit the things I do not know. I am well aware, for example, that I cannot prove the existence of God. But I am not an idolater for believing.


Are people God to you?

You do not see anything supernatural about the Christian God. Good for you. That is not what the dogma says so you have made up your own God. Good.

So why could you not answer the first question you put?

So you do not idolize God. Ok. Who do you put above him?



People being God is an oxymoron.

I never said that. I said he is not an ideal.

No, for the reason I stated above. My God is the God worshipped by billions.

I did.

No-one, hence why I am not an idolater.


You lie in every post you give me.

Go away atheist. Christian do not need you to discredit them. They can do it on their own.