Is it possible for atheism to ever be anything more than critical theory?

[anotherlife]

Plus the other problem with atheism is that it is a purely political stunt. Mostly used by Marxist political strategists. In contrast, religions offer personal enrichment.

Do you believe in cause and effect?

Yes but not necessarily in its linearity in time. By the way I am not alone, Steven Hawkins doesn't believe in that either.

 

[MaryL]

I am an agnostic. I am hedging my bets. I pray and nothing happens, so I think I flip a coin, and I lose. So I get it, maybe I haven't after all. Or maybe not. 50 50. So were was God on the holocaust? Never mind….

 

[anotherlife]

We need a wall to keep out the atheists. A yuge wall.

And then they come with wire cutters and congresswoman jayal (?) greets them at the border. Or they come like Nancy Pelosi. Hehe.

 

[anotherlife]

In this case, atheism can't exist, because omnipotence would not give it room. God did create Satan, and as everything that He created, Satan too may be theorized as part of God. However there are different relationships between God and god's parts.

The two verses clearly label Satan as God, not created by God as you falsely claim.

And as far as omnipotence goes, Agathon said it best:
Even God cannot change the past.
- Agathon

The problem is that these are all false statements. And agathon is not God, he can be wrong. Of course God can change the past, mathematically from the infinity start point this is easily possible at least.

Nope, your impotent God can't change the past, the same Super God who made him torture and murder his only begotten son won't let him change the past.

Your statement here is a religious statement. Only that it's God is that there is no God.

And by the way the past changes continuously too, not only the statistical mismatch between people's memories with events is a proof of that but also the physical fact, that natures laws appear to be constant, proving that they change synchronously with time itself.

Pure doublespeak!

Double speak? I guess you have never heard about the subject of mathematical physics.

 

[anotherlife]

I am an agnostic. I am hedging my bets. I pray and nothing happens, so I think I flip a coin, and I lose. So I get it, maybe I haven't after all. Or maybe not. 50 50. So were was God on the holocaust? Never mind….

It is a known fact, that the holly spirit works only within the parameters of. The Cross.

As for the people who reject God's Son? I have no idea. The holocaust was in the 20th century. In the 21st people invented things worse than that.

 

[anotherlife]

The two verses clearly label Satan as God, not created by God as you falsely claim.

And as far as omnipotence goes, Agathon said it best:
Even God cannot change the past.
- Agathon

The problem is that these are all false statements. And agathon is not God, he can be wrong. Of course God can change the past, mathematically from the infinity start point this is easily possible at least.

Nope, your impotent God can't change the past, the same Super God who made him torture and murder his only begotten son won't let him change the past.

Your statement here is a religious statement. Only that it's God is that there is no God.

And by the way the past changes continuously too, not only the statistical mismatch between people's memories with events is a proof of that but also the physical fact, that natures laws appear to be constant, proving that they change synchronously with time itself.

Pure doublespeak!

On the other hand if we accept this theory there can be absolutely now way of proving it.
Einstien is hard enough to get one’s head around let alone a claim nothing ever was what it appeard to be. We can even use the theory itself as the foundation for a claim it didn’t say what it claimed to say. Pure nonsense that would make even Bishop Berkely proud.

Bullshit, because both the Maxwell equations of electromagnetic waves, as well as Schrodinger's quantum mechanical equations, all have valid solutions in the negative time dimension too, that is for events that have their cause in the future and their consequences in the past. Usually physics doesn't invalidate mathematics. Especially not when it is just a simple case of a second order differential function.

 

[well named]

Yes, if that is all one does it is most definitely negative. Critical theory which is the Cultural Marxist theory to criticize what they do not believe to arrive at what they do believe without ever having to examine what they believe. They confuse critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity.

Relevant reading - The Frankfurt School and Critical Theory

I know what critical theory is. I've made two points in this thread

1) atheism is not a critical theory
2) critical theory is not merely negative. There's nothing in your article which declares it as such, but also I think the Stanford Encyclopedia article is better written, and I'll call out this quote from Horkheimer specifically, who is also discussed by the IEP article:

According to these theorists, a “critical” theory may be distinguished from a “traditional” theory according to a specific practical purpose: a theory is critical to the extent that it seeks human “emancipation from slavery”, acts as a “liberating … influence”, and works “to create a world which satisfies the needs and powers” of human beings (Horkheimer 1972, 246)
​

Those all involve positive ends as well as criticism of social structures. Essentially the distinction they were trying to make was that theory shouldn't be separated from practice, and that social theorists also had ethical obligations to try to make the world better. In other words they thought academics should also be activists, which is a position that certainly still exists in the social sciences today.

Probably more important to your OP is just (1). Critical theory is interesting in and of itself but it has basically nothing to do with atheism per se.

​

 

[james bond]

The theory of gravity can explain why some thing's float and others don't, but it can't prove that the real reason isn't that magical super-beings make it so

The reason it is so is because of the laws of nature which existed before space and time make it so. We live in a logical universe governed by rules where every cause has an effect which means everything happens for a reason and has a purpose.

That's a magical assumption based on nothing

No. It's called inflation theory. You should read up on it. It explain show space and time were created from nothing without violating the law of conservation and began to expand and cool until such time that beings that know and create were ultimately produced according to the laws of nature which existed before space and time.

Do you even have any science background at all?

I have to disagree. You're referring to cosmic inflation and that never got anywhere. It went up against classical physics or God and was defeated. Stephen Hawking wrote his last paper on it. If he could prove his Hawking Radiation, then he would have received the Nobel Prize. He had the "C" and the "T", but could not spell cat. The things that atheist scientists hypothesize and theorize about space is not true. These scientists spend their whole lives on something and come up with nothing. Stephen Hawking was the guy I learned the Big Bang Theory from. He theorized the Big Bang started with a single point of singularity in quantum mechanics. Let's give him the "near" infinite temperature and density for singularity. Then comes the microsecond after the huge expansion starts. This is the microsecond after his Big Bang. What happened? Classical physics got in his way. Not only that, cosmic inflation is impossible. Just try to describe what happened if you believe it did. Hawking tried, but died trying to show the origins of the universe and failed. His last words were "We live in the Matrix." (which is probably right, but are you taking the red or blue pill?) Science can be a cruel mistress. All this time, you've been believing in pseudoscience if you believe in BBT and cosmic inflation.

Stephen Hawking's Last Words: We Live In 'The Matrix'?

Stephen Hawking was of the atheist religion. I think it's more a religion than a critical theory although atheists do beotch about how much power Christians have. To the contrary, in science, they systematically eliminated God, the supernatural and the Bible as science. This really isn't science.

Inflation theory is totally compatible with a creator. But this thread isn’t about that.

Atheism isn't critical theory, but a religion. That said, cosmic inflation isn't science, but pseudoscience. How can something like that happen? God is the only one who can do creation ex nihilo.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

The reason it is so is because of the laws of nature which existed before space and time make it so. We live in a logical universe governed by rules where every cause has an effect which means everything happens for a reason and has a purpose.

That's a magical assumption based on nothing

No. It's called inflation theory. You should read up on it. It explain show space and time were created from nothing without violating the law of conservation and began to expand and cool until such time that beings that know and create were ultimately produced according to the laws of nature which existed before space and time.

Do you even have any science background at all?

I have to disagree. You're referring to cosmic inflation and that never got anywhere. It went up against classical physics or God and was defeated. Stephen Hawking wrote his last paper on it. If he could prove his Hawking Radiation, then he would have received the Nobel Prize. He had the "C" and the "T", but could not spell cat. The things that atheist scientists hypothesize and theorize about space is not true. These scientists spend their whole lives on something and come up with nothing. Stephen Hawking was the guy I learned the Big Bang Theory from. He theorized the Big Bang started with a single point of singularity in quantum mechanics. Let's give him the "near" infinite temperature and density for singularity. Then comes the microsecond after the huge expansion starts. This is the microsecond after his Big Bang. What happened? Classical physics got in his way. Not only that, cosmic inflation is impossible. Just try to describe what happened if you believe it did. Hawking tried, but died trying to show the origins of the universe and failed. His last words were "We live in the Matrix." (which is probably right, but are you taking the red or blue pill?) Science can be a cruel mistress. All this time, you've been believing in pseudoscience if you believe in BBT and cosmic inflation.

Stephen Hawking's Last Words: We Live In 'The Matrix'?

Stephen Hawking was of the atheist religion. I think it's more a religion than a critical theory although atheists do beotch about how much power Christians have. To the contrary, in science, they systematically eliminated God, the supernatural and the Bible as science. This really isn't science.

Inflation theory is totally compatible with a creator. But this thread isn’t about that.

Atheism isn't critical theory, but a religion. That said, cosmic inflation isn't science, but pseudoscience. How can something like that happen? God is the only one who can do creation ex nihilo.

It’s probably pointless to point out the errors in your post here, but I’ll try nonetheless.

Atheism isn’t a religion. How can it be without any kind of divinity, without a positive message for its adherents, without adherents in the first place.

There is no reason to worship without anything to worship. Nothing is holy or sacred, because there is no such thing as holy or sacred.


There are no tenets, no orthodoxy, no commandments, no objective good and evil, and no objective morality. There is no dogma. No organization or power structure with a godhead.

There is only that a person is not convinced God or gods exist.

As for cosmic inflation being pseudoscience. By what you described above, I don’t think you understand the theory well enough to confidently say it it is pseudoscience because cosmic inflation is a theory describing what has happened in the Universe since right after the Big Bang; it doesn’t describe or predict what caused the Big Bang.

These theoretic physicists have far more education and experience in this field than do you or I.

I place my trust in them rather than someone who lacks that training and experience

 

[Karl Rand]

Plus the other problem with atheism is that it is a purely political stunt. Mostly used by Marxist political strategists. In contrast, religions offer personal enrichment.

Huh... I never got the memo on the Marxist thing.

This was the foundation of Soviet society. Still practiced in Cuba.

It’s amazes me how I’m so content without the ‘personal enrichment’ of religion.
And don’t try and tell my I don’t know what I’m missing, I do.

 

[Karl Rand]

God is the only one who can do creation ex nihilo.

No doubt he whispered that in your ear.

 

[anotherlife]

Plus the other problem with atheism is that it is a purely political stunt. Mostly used by Marxist political strategists. In contrast, religions offer personal enrichment.

Huh... I never got the memo on the Marxist thing.

This was the foundation of Soviet society. Still practiced in Cuba.

It’s amazes me how I’m so content without the ‘personal enrichment’ of religion.
And don’t try and tell my I don’t know what I’m missing, I do.

You are entitled to your choices of course.

What usually religions point out, not just the Christian one but all, that you may be free and happy without them, but it is not in your control when another force finds you for it. And you can't hide, because you have to go out and take care of your game.

 

[dblack]

Plus the other problem with atheism is that it is a purely political stunt. Mostly used by Marxist political strategists. In contrast, religions offer personal enrichment.

Huh... I never got the memo on the Marxist thing.

This was the foundation of Soviet society. Still practiced in Cuba.

Ad Hominem (Guilt by Association)

 

[ding]

Yes, if that is all one does it is most definitely negative. Critical theory which is the Cultural Marxist theory to criticize what they do not believe to arrive at what they do believe without ever having to examine what they believe. They confuse critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity.

Relevant reading - The Frankfurt School and Critical Theory

I know what critical theory is. I've made two points in this thread

1) atheism is not a critical theory
2) critical theory is not merely negative. There's nothing in your article which declares it as such, but also I think the Stanford Encyclopedia article is better written, and I'll call out this quote from Horkheimer specifically, who is also discussed by the IEP article:

According to these theorists, a “critical” theory may be distinguished from a “traditional” theory according to a specific practical purpose: a theory is critical to the extent that it seeks human “emancipation from slavery”, acts as a “liberating … influence”, and works “to create a world which satisfies the needs and powers” of human beings (Horkheimer 1972, 246)
​

Those all involve positive ends as well as criticism of social structures. Essentially the distinction they were trying to make was that theory shouldn't be separated from practice, and that social theorists also had ethical obligations to try to make the world better. In other words they thought academics should also be activists, which is a position that certainly still exists in the social sciences today.

Probably more important to your OP is just (1). Critical theory is interesting in and of itself but it has basically nothing to do with atheism per se.

​

Can you prove a negative?

 

[ding]

The reason it is so is because of the laws of nature which existed before space and time make it so. We live in a logical universe governed by rules where every cause has an effect which means everything happens for a reason and has a purpose.

That's a magical assumption based on nothing

No. It's called inflation theory. You should read up on it. It explain show space and time were created from nothing without violating the law of conservation and began to expand and cool until such time that beings that know and create were ultimately produced according to the laws of nature which existed before space and time.

Do you even have any science background at all?

I have to disagree. You're referring to cosmic inflation and that never got anywhere. It went up against classical physics or God and was defeated. Stephen Hawking wrote his last paper on it. If he could prove his Hawking Radiation, then he would have received the Nobel Prize. He had the "C" and the "T", but could not spell cat. The things that atheist scientists hypothesize and theorize about space is not true. These scientists spend their whole lives on something and come up with nothing. Stephen Hawking was the guy I learned the Big Bang Theory from. He theorized the Big Bang started with a single point of singularity in quantum mechanics. Let's give him the "near" infinite temperature and density for singularity. Then comes the microsecond after the huge expansion starts. This is the microsecond after his Big Bang. What happened? Classical physics got in his way. Not only that, cosmic inflation is impossible. Just try to describe what happened if you believe it did. Hawking tried, but died trying to show the origins of the universe and failed. His last words were "We live in the Matrix." (which is probably right, but are you taking the red or blue pill?) Science can be a cruel mistress. All this time, you've been believing in pseudoscience if you believe in BBT and cosmic inflation.

Stephen Hawking's Last Words: We Live In 'The Matrix'?

Stephen Hawking was of the atheist religion. I think it's more a religion than a critical theory although atheists do beotch about how much power Christians have. To the contrary, in science, they systematically eliminated God, the supernatural and the Bible as science. This really isn't science.

Inflation theory is totally compatible with a creator. But this thread isn’t about that.

Atheism isn't critical theory, but a religion. That said, cosmic inflation isn't science, but pseudoscience. How can something like that happen? God is the only one who can do creation ex nihilo.

The argument for atheism is based on critical theory.

 

[ding]

[ding :QUOTE]
Throughout our nation's history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people's allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before putting their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation's Christian heritage. Dr. Ron Paul

Where to start with that pile of bullshit?
Maybe we could examine the assertion ‘churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility'? How anyone can make such a claim in the light of the last decade’s exposure of those in ministry being rampant pedophiles while the church actively covered their tracks and gave them shelter? Mind boggling. The apologists however can always blame Satan. What an asset to theological gibberish that little superstition is.
Academic theologians have approached this question with the usual slight of hand, and not simply because it questions church doctrine. They tell us even asking such questions is instigated from the dark heart of Satan himself disguised in the language of dispassionate intellect. A heart of darkness of which we are supposedly not aware. They often go on to suggest intellect is not in itself diabolical but divorced from the truth of the gospels it fails to comprehend the complete cosmic picture and falls into error.
Tell us another fairy story.
_______________________________________________________________________

(Mark Dwight, I’d try and answer your post but I can’t understand what it is you’re saying.)[/QUOTE]
I will create a thread in the bull ring and send you an invite. We can debate it there.

 

[Taz]

[ding :QUOTE]
Throughout our nation's history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people's allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before putting their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation's Christian heritage. Dr. Ron Paul

Where to start with that pile of bullshit?
Maybe we could examine the assertion ‘churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility'? How anyone can make such a claim in the light of the last decade’s exposure of those in ministry being rampant pedophiles while the church actively covered their tracks and gave them shelter? Mind boggling. The apologists however can always blame Satan. What an asset to theological gibberish that little superstition is.
Academic theologians have approached this question with the usual slight of hand, and not simply because it questions church doctrine. They tell us even asking such questions is instigated from the dark heart of Satan himself disguised in the language of dispassionate intellect. A heart of darkness of which we are supposedly not aware. They often go on to suggest intellect is not in itself diabolical but divorced from the truth of the gospels it fails to comprehend the complete cosmic picture and falls into error.
Tell us another fairy story.
_______________________________________________________________________

(Mark Dwight, I’d try and answer your post but I can’t understand what it is you’re saying.)

I will create a thread in the bull ring and send you an invite. We can debate it there.[/QUOTE]
Post the link, I want to see him destroy you some more.

 

[ding]

[ding :QUOTE]
Throughout our nation's history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people's allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before putting their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation's Christian heritage. Dr. Ron Paul

Where to start with that pile of bullshit?
Maybe we could examine the assertion ‘churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility'? How anyone can make such a claim in the light of the last decade’s exposure of those in ministry being rampant pedophiles while the church actively covered their tracks and gave them shelter? Mind boggling. The apologists however can always blame Satan. What an asset to theological gibberish that little superstition is.
Academic theologians have approached this question with the usual slight of hand, and not simply because it questions church doctrine. They tell us even asking such questions is instigated from the dark heart of Satan himself disguised in the language of dispassionate intellect. A heart of darkness of which we are supposedly not aware. They often go on to suggest intellect is not in itself diabolical but divorced from the truth of the gospels it fails to comprehend the complete cosmic picture and falls into error.
Tell us another fairy story.
_______________________________________________________________________

(Mark Dwight, I’d try and answer your post but I can’t understand what it is you’re saying.)

I will create a thread in the bull ring and send you an invite. We can debate it there.

Post the link, I want to see him destroy you some more. [/QUOTE]
What makes you believe he will show?

 

[Taz]

[ding :QUOTE]
Throughout our nation's history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people's allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before putting their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation's Christian heritage. Dr. Ron Paul

Where to start with that pile of bullshit?
Maybe we could examine the assertion ‘churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility'? How anyone can make such a claim in the light of the last decade’s exposure of those in ministry being rampant pedophiles while the church actively covered their tracks and gave them shelter? Mind boggling. The apologists however can always blame Satan. What an asset to theological gibberish that little superstition is.
Academic theologians have approached this question with the usual slight of hand, and not simply because it questions church doctrine. They tell us even asking such questions is instigated from the dark heart of Satan himself disguised in the language of dispassionate intellect. A heart of darkness of which we are supposedly not aware. They often go on to suggest intellect is not in itself diabolical but divorced from the truth of the gospels it fails to comprehend the complete cosmic picture and falls into error.
Tell us another fairy story.
_______________________________________________________________________

(Mark Dwight, I’d try and answer your post but I can’t understand what it is you’re saying.)

I will create a thread in the bull ring and send you an invite. We can debate it there.

Post the link, I want to see him destroy you some more.

What makes you believe he will show?[/QUOTE]
Don't care if he does, he can keep on going right here.

 

[there4eyeM]

Theory and view point are not synonyms.
Atheism is merely a way of looking at existence. It is at most a philosophy.
Calling it a religion is trying to childishly insult those who think that way by associating it with something the 'insulter' thinks will be found irritating.
Atheism , of itself, poses no threat, destroys nothing. It is a completely 'take it or leave it ' proposition. All those so fervently opposed to atheism need to do is prove their deity exists, and it will be resolved. There will be no revolutionaries or rabid hold-outs in the hills sniping at religious centers.