Favourite theologian, atheist and philosopher?

 
More Than Mortal
| d-d-d-DANK ✡ 🔥🔥🔥 🌈
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: MetaCognition
ID: Meta Cognition
IP: Logged

15,062 posts
This is the way the world ends. Not with a bang but a whimper.
Who is your favourite theologian from whatever religion, favourite atheist and favourite philosopher? Your reasons for choosing the philosopher, however, must be secular.

My favourite theologian is definitely Friedrich Schleiermacher, because I have a soft-spot for the Irenaean tradition of theodicy and I'm a fan of Schleiermachian ethics.

My favourite atheist is probably Christopher Hitchens, simply for his wit and passion.

My favourite philosopher is obviously Nietzsche, although I do like Roman philosopher Boethius too.


 
SecondClass
| Carmen
 
more |
XBL:
PSN: ModernLocust
Steam:
ID: SecondClass
IP: Logged

30,003 posts
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
—Judge Aaron Satie
——Carmen
Jim from The Office


Naoto | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Naoto
IP: Logged

3,753 posts
{zzz}°°°( -_-)>c[_]
Don't much care about theologians or philosophers, so I'll just do favorite atheist.

Which is obviously Christopher Hitchens. To quote Sam Harris "The man had more style and substance than a few civilizations I could mention."

What he lacked in scientific background he more than made up for in style, wit, and ferocious debate.


 
Verbatim
| Komm, süßer Tod
 
more |
XBL:
PSN: Verbatim-1
Steam: Jaco230
ID: Verbatim
IP: Logged

48,034 posts
I don't know any theologians besides C. S. Lewis, and C. S. Lewis was a moron, so fuck that.

Hitchens, of course.

Marx. Schopenhauer. Socrates. Wittgenstein. Me.


Mordo | Mythic Invincible!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Madman Mordo
IP: Logged

7,236 posts
emigrate or degenerate. the choice is yours
>theologian


Turkey | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL: Viva Redemption
PSN: HurtfulTurkey
Steam: HurtfulTurkey
ID: HurtfulTurkey
IP: Logged

8,077 posts
 
Theologian: Ravi Zacharias or Augustine. Honorable mentions of Dallas Willard, N. T. Wright, and C. S. Lewis.

Atheist: Douglas Hoftsadter

Philosopher: Epictetus. I like to think I ascribe to stoicism, but I respect many western classical philosophers.
Last Edit: June 10, 2015, 03:38:44 PM by HurtfulTurkey


 
DAS B00T x2
| Cultural Appropriator
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: DAS B00T x2
IP: Logged

37,622 posts
This is not the greatest sig in the world, no. This is just a tribute.
Theologian: don't study any

Atheist: Pat Condell

Philosopher: Philosophy is the hobby of fat, old, retired men, and I am neither old or retired. (Tolstoy was a cool guy though)


 
More Than Mortal
| d-d-d-DANK ✡ 🔥🔥🔥 🌈
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: MetaCognition
ID: Meta Cognition
IP: Logged

15,062 posts
This is the way the world ends. Not with a bang but a whimper.


Turkey | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL: Viva Redemption
PSN: HurtfulTurkey
Steam: HurtfulTurkey
ID: HurtfulTurkey
IP: Logged

8,077 posts
 
Augustine
Ew.

City of God and Confessions are two of the most significant pieces of theology in history. He was a groundbreaking theologian, and it doesn't take full agreement with his views to acknowledge that. Hell, I think Catholics are a solstice holiday away from being apostates, but I still have deep respect for Augustine.


 
More Than Mortal
| d-d-d-DANK ✡ 🔥🔥🔥 🌈
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: MetaCognition
ID: Meta Cognition
IP: Logged

15,062 posts
This is the way the world ends. Not with a bang but a whimper.
City of God and Confessions are two of the most significant pieces of theology in history.
And most of it, from what I know, seems to be bullshit.

His ideas about the afterlife in City of God are just nonsense, even if they are closer to the Biblical account of life after death than the writings of St. Paul, and his theodicy trying to justify God's righteousness in the face of evil is equally nonsensical.

I'll give him credit for sticking more closely to the doctrine than Irenaeus and Schleiermacher ever did, but at least they came up with a broadly more respectable answer.


Turkey | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL: Viva Redemption
PSN: HurtfulTurkey
Steam: HurtfulTurkey
ID: HurtfulTurkey
IP: Logged

8,077 posts
 
City of God and Confessions are two of the most significant pieces of theology in history.
And most of it, from what I know, seems to be bullshit.

His ideas about the afterlife in City of God are just nonsense, even if they are closer to the Biblical account of life after death than the writings of St. Paul, and his theodicy trying to justify God's righteousness in the face of evil is equally nonsensical.

I'll give him credit for sticking more closely to the doctrine than Irenaeus and Schleiermacher ever did, but at least they came up with a broadly more respectable answer.

I've never read anything by Schleiermacher, and I'm not really sure what to say about that debate since City of God really isn't about the afterlife. I think if you're going to call Augustine's theodicy "nonsense" you have to do something to qualify it, and while I sincerely don't mean to be rude, I strongly suspect you're mostly parroting someone else's opinion after a cursory read of the relevant Wikipedia pages.


Azumarill | Mythic Invincible!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Azumarill
IP: Logged

7,654 posts
 
cs lewis

no "favorite atheist"

epicurus


 
More Than Mortal
| d-d-d-DANK ✡ 🔥🔥🔥 🌈
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: MetaCognition
ID: Meta Cognition
IP: Logged

15,062 posts
This is the way the world ends. Not with a bang but a whimper.
I've never read anything by Schleiermacher, and I'm not really sure what to say about that debate since City of God really isn't about the afterlife. I think if you're going to call Augustine's theodicy "nonsense" you have to do something to qualify it, and while I sincerely don't mean to be rude, I strongly suspect you're mostly parroting someone else's opinion after a cursory read of the relevant Wikipedia pages.
Pretty certain I've thrown this passage in City of God at you before:

Quote
19. That all bodily blemishes which mar human beauty in this life shall be removed in the resurrection, the natural substance of the body remaining, but the quality and quantity of it being altered so as to produce beauty.

What am I to say now about the hair and nails? Once it is understood that no part of the body shall so perish as to produce deformity in the body, it is at the same time understood that such things as would have produced a deformity by their excessive proportions shall be added to the total bulk of the body, not to parts in which the beauty of the proportion would thus be marred. Just as if, after making a vessel of clay, one wished to make it over again of the same clay, it would not be necessary that the same portion of the clay which had formed the handle should again form the new handle, or that what had formed the bottom should again do so, but only that the whole clay should go to make up the whole new vessel, and that no part of it should be left unused. “Wherefore, if the hair that has been cropped and the nails that have been cut would cause a deformity were they to be restored to their places, they shall not be restored; and yet no one will lose these parts at the resurrection, for they shall be changed into the same flesh, their substance being so altered as to preserve the proportion of the various parts of the body. However, what our Lord said, “Not a hair of your head shall perish,” might more suitably be interpreted of the number, and not of the length of the hairs, as He elsewhere says, “The hairs of your head are all numbered.”

As for his theodicy, it relies on numerous ideas and propositions which just seem indefensible. That the Fall of Man be taken literally, and that future generations ought to suffer because we were apparently "seminally present" in the loins of Adam. That evil is the absence of good. That free will may lead to people committing evil acts, but that it is necessary for a proper relationship with God (the free will part being the part I take issue with). The idea that God created the world perfect, and then it was corrupted through the immoral exercise of said free will. And the reduction of all suffering to either the privation of good or the punishment of the privation of good.

Those are the things which immediately come to mind. And, of course, people tend to say that you can only judge Augustine by the standards of his time. Sure, fair enough, but Irenaeus managed to make a much better job of it than Augustine did despite coming centuries earlier and contemporaries like the Roman philosopher Boethius also had (at least in my eyes) a much better understanding of free will and moral evil.


Turkey | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL: Viva Redemption
PSN: HurtfulTurkey
Steam: HurtfulTurkey
ID: HurtfulTurkey
IP: Logged

8,077 posts
 
I've never read anything by Schleiermacher, and I'm not really sure what to say about that debate since City of God really isn't about the afterlife. I think if you're going to call Augustine's theodicy "nonsense" you have to do something to qualify it, and while I sincerely don't mean to be rude, I strongly suspect you're mostly parroting someone else's opinion after a cursory read of the relevant Wikipedia pages.
Pretty certain I've thrown this passage in City of God at you before:

Quote
19. That all bodily blemishes which mar human beauty in this life shall be removed in the resurrection, the natural substance of the body remaining, but the quality and quantity of it being altered so as to produce beauty.

What am I to say now about the hair and nails? Once it is understood that no part of the body shall so perish as to produce deformity in the body, it is at the same time understood that such things as would have produced a deformity by their excessive proportions shall be added to the total bulk of the body, not to parts in which the beauty of the proportion would thus be marred. Just as if, after making a vessel of clay, one wished to make it over again of the same clay, it would not be necessary that the same portion of the clay which had formed the handle should again form the new handle, or that what had formed the bottom should again do so, but only that the whole clay should go to make up the whole new vessel, and that no part of it should be left unused. “Wherefore, if the hair that has been cropped and the nails that have been cut would cause a deformity were they to be restored to their places, they shall not be restored; and yet no one will lose these parts at the resurrection, for they shall be changed into the same flesh, their substance being so altered as to preserve the proportion of the various parts of the body. However, what our Lord said, “Not a hair of your head shall perish,” might more suitably be interpreted of the number, and not of the length of the hairs, as He elsewhere says, “The hairs of your head are all numbered.”
I don't understand what your issue with this is. Is it that such details are being discussed at all? City of God is 22 books long, and this is just a paragraph of a preeminent Christian scholar musing through what could be the answer to fine details of the resurrection body.

Quote
As for his theodicy, it relies on numerous ideas and propositions which just seem indefensible. That the Fall of Man be taken literally, and that future generations ought to suffer because we were apparently "seminally present" in the loins of Adam. That evil is the absence of good. That free will may lead to people committing evil acts, but that it is necessary for a proper relationship with God (the free will part being the part I take issue with). The idea that God created the world perfect, and then it was corrupted through the immoral exercise of said free will. And the reduction of all suffering to either the privation of good or the punishment of the privation of good.
Again, I'm not sure what you want me to say. You're basically just disagreeing with swaths of Christian doctrine; if you're not a Christian, and don't put stock in the truth of the Bible, you're going to disagree with those claims. Jesus and his disciples talked about sin passing from the father to his sons, how humans are "children of wrath", etc. In a Christian worldview in which goodness is literally defined by the character of God, it follows that absence of godly character is an absence of good, thus defined as 'evil'. Did God created evil to fulfill a purpose or is it an innate deprivation of His character in humanity? They're not necessarily in conflict if you think that the world as we know it, including the Fall, is exactly how God originally intended, then you see that they're both discussing different sides of the same coin. But Irenaeus goes on to talk about how everyone goes to heaven and that the mortal world is basically puberty for humanity to transcend into deities themselves, and that's pretty silly in my humble opinion. He has absolutely no biblical basis for that conclusion.
Last Edit: June 10, 2015, 07:46:08 PM by HurtfulTurkey


 
More Than Mortal
| d-d-d-DANK ✡ 🔥🔥🔥 🌈
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: MetaCognition
ID: Meta Cognition
IP: Logged

15,062 posts
This is the way the world ends. Not with a bang but a whimper.
Is it that such details are being discussed at all?
Essentially. It hardly looks like mere "musing" to me, and there's absolutely no way Augustine could have that sort of knowledge.

Quote
Did God created evil to fulfill a purpose or is it an innate deprivation of His character in humanity? They're not necessarily in conflict if you think that the world as we know it, including the Fall, is exactly how God originally intended, then you see that they're both discussing different sides of the same coin.
As far as I understand it, Augustine never saw suffering as part of God's plan. He saw it quite explicitly as a result of man's disobedience and moral depravity. Is the immoral exercise of free will necessarily distinct from teleological evil or suffering? No, of course not. But like I say, Irenaeus was the one of the two who actually came up with an explanations that seems more philosophically defensible.

I know Schleiermacher criticsed Augustine for the logical contradiction of a world created perfect which was then corrupted--although I don't know if he did it first--and so the Irenaean tradition argues that the world we inhabit is the best possible world God was capable of creating; at least they put some utility in suffering, besides punishment of course, which the Augustinian tradition seemingly has no interest in finding.

Quote
But Irenaeus goes on to talk about how everyone goes to heaven and that the mortal world is basically puberty for humanity to transcend into deities themselves, and that's pretty silly in my humble opinion. He has absolutely no biblical basis for that conclusion.
Sure, and like I say I'll give Augustine and his successors like Karl Barth credit for actually sticking to it. But when it comes down to personal preference I much prefer Irenaeus and Schleiermacher, even if they did subscribe to universalism unjustifiably. Although I don't think Irenaeus claimed humanity transcends into deities so much as succeeds in fulfilling the likeness of God, which does have a Biblical basis.

Not a fan of John Hick, though.


ban me | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL: .
PSN: .
Steam: .
ID: Iberian Husky
IP: Logged

5,080 posts
.
This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.


Turkey | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL: Viva Redemption
PSN: HurtfulTurkey
Steam: HurtfulTurkey
ID: HurtfulTurkey
IP: Logged

8,077 posts
 
I'm not sure Augustine held no purpose for suffering -- any theologian worth his salt can give you a reason for anything. I find City of God hard to discuss because I haven't studied it in several years and it's hard to just pick it up again. Like I said, I don't necessarily ascribe to much of what he says, but you'd be hard-pressed to find another theologian with such a profound impact on the subject to this day.


 
cxfhvxgkcf-56:7
| Marty Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: SoporificSlash
IP: Logged

15,656 posts
 
This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.


 
More Than Mortal
| d-d-d-DANK ✡ 🔥🔥🔥 🌈
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: MetaCognition
ID: Meta Cognition
IP: Logged

15,062 posts
This is the way the world ends. Not with a bang but a whimper.
but you'd be hard-pressed to find another theologian with such a profound impact on the subject to this day.
Sure, but when it comes down to personal preference I just don't find influence that compelling a reason to hold him in high esteem.


The Lord Slide Rule | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL: MrMeatyMeatball
PSN:
Steam: SexyPiranha
ID: SexyPiranha
IP: Logged

4,306 posts
My stupidity is self evident.
Erm, I haven't studied any theology although it seems like a fun thing to study.

Atheists? Uh me. Nah. Douglas Adams and Bertrand Russell I guess.

Philosophers? I'm kind of all over the place here, I guess Russell could've gone here too but I knew about him first for atheism. Nietzsche, C. S. Peirce and Karl Popper for different probably not entirely compatible reasons.


Mmmmm Napalm | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL: Mmmmm Napalm
PSN: KeeblerElvesYaoi
Steam: KeeblerElvesYaoi
ID: Mmmmm Napalm
IP: Logged

6,177 posts
gurb
1. Martin Luther, and although I don't know if I'd call him a theologian but Dietrich Bonhöffer was pretty cool.

2. Don't have one.

3. G.W.F. Hegel