Is it possible for atheism to ever be anything more than 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.)

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?

Don't care if he does, he can keep on going right here. [/QUOTE]
I don’t think it will take very long.

 

[ding]

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.

Reread the OP to better understand the question.

My point is that since atheists cannot prove a negative the only way they can confirm their beliefs is by criticizing the beliefs of others. Which is exactly what we see in this forum.

 

[there4eyeM]

An atheist has not experienced 'God' and does not believe what others say. That is not 'believing'.

 

[toobfreak]

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

ATHEISM: the religion of those who have never seen for themselves that there then must be nothing to see for anyone else either because they haven't the eyes to see it. Their argument: the "rational" mind tells them that 85% of the people in the world are simply delusional and that though faith is a thing of the heart, their mind tells them it makes more sense that their consciousness came from mere dust rather than other, higher consciousness, though they have no more proof of it.

Put another way, atheism is but yet one more form of "elitism" for those who need to feel smarter and better than others they cannot understand because they are in a tiny minority. Atheism has one redeeming quality though, in that is removes for those few the responsibility that they must atone to a higher authority or morality, and that the universe has somehow left them in total charge of their own lives and destiny to make things up as they go along-- -- -- -- especially convenient for autocratic states who aspire for power and control over millions as the ultimate arbiter of men's lives.

 

[dblack]

My point is that since atheists cannot prove a negative the only way they can confirm their beliefs is by criticizing the beliefs of others. Which is exactly what we see in this forum.

I can't speak for the cranks on this forum. But atheists have no need to "confirm" their non-belief. As you say, that would be proving a negative. The idea is nonsensical.

 

[well named]

Can you prove a negative?

Sure. If p then q. Not q, therefore not p.

P1) If atheism is a critical theory then atheism "must explain what is wrong with current social reality, identify the actors to change it, and provide both clear norms for criticism and achievable practical goals for social transformation." (From SEP, following Horkheimer's definition of critical theory in the broad sense)

P2) Atheism qua atheism (i.e. the claim that God does not exist) does not seek to explain what is wrong with current social reality, or to identify the actors to change it, or to provide clear norms for criticism and acheivable practical goals for social transformation.

C) Therefore, atheism is not a critical theory.

The thing is, you've never really attempted to make an argument for your claim that atheism is a critical theory (n.b. I've noticed you tend to make a lot of assertions but rarely try to justify them with more than platitudes), but I believe I can infer something like an argument which you might make, given the definition of critical theory used above. The problem is that "atheism" is too broad. If you tried to identify more specific anti-theistic social movements or groups as applications of critical theory you'd have a better argument, but of course not all atheists are interested in or participate in those movements or groups.

 

[ding]

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

ATHEISM: the religion of those who have never seen for themselves that there then must be nothing to see for anyone else either because they haven't the eyes to see it. Their argument: the "rational" mind tells them that 85% of the people in the world are simply delusional and that though faith is a thing of the heart, their mind tells them it makes more sense that their consciousness came from mere dust rather than other, higher consciousness, though they have no more proof of it.

Put another way, atheism is but yet one more form of "elitism" for those who need to feel smarter and better than others they cannot understand because they are in a tiny minority. Atheism has one redeeming quality though, in that is removes for those few the responsibility that they must atone to a higher authority or morality, and that the universe has somehow left them in total charge of their own lives and destiny to make things up as they go along-- -- -- -- especially convenient for autocratic states who aspire for power and control over millions as the ultimate arbiter of men's lives.

Exactly.

The title of the OP was worded poorly.

The argument for the validity of atheism can only be made as a criticism of other belief systems. They can only confirm their beliefs by arguing that every other belief system is wrong. They can only make critical theory arguments.

 

[ding]

Can you prove a negative?

Sure. If p then q. Not q, therefore not p.

P1) If atheism is a critical theory then atheism "must explain what is wrong with current social reality, identify the actors to change it, and provide both clear norms for criticism and achievable practical goals for social transformation." (From SEP, following Horkheimer's definition of critical theory in the broad sense)

P2) Atheism qua atheism (i.e. the claim that God does not exist) does not seek to explain what is wrong with current social reality, or to identify the actors to change it, or to provide clear norms for criticism and acheivable practical goals for social transformation.

C) Therefore, atheism is not a critical theory.

The thing is, you've never really attempted to make an argument for your claim that atheism is a critical theory (n.b. I've noticed you tend to make a lot of assertions but rarely try to justify them with more than platitudes), but I believe I can infer something like an argument which you might make, given the definition of critical theory used above. The problem is that "atheism" is too broad. If you tried to identify more specific anti-theistic social movements or groups as applications of critical theory you'd have a better argument, but of course not all atheists are interested in or participate in those movements or groups.

See post above this one.

 

[ding]

My point is that since atheists cannot prove a negative the only way they can confirm their beliefs is by criticizing the beliefs of others. Which is exactly what we see in this forum.

I can't speak for the cranks on this forum. But atheists have no need to "confirm" their non-belief. As you say, that would be proving a negative. The idea is nonsensical.

And yet that is exactly what the militant ones are doing.

 

[well named]

See post above this one.

See #78

They can only confirm their beliefs by arguing that every other belief system is wrong. They can only make critical theory arguments.

Since they are not "critical theory" arguments, you should stop calling them that. If your only point is that atheism in practice is a response to the theism of western religions, then I agree (see #78 linked above, 3rd paragraph), but it's not clear why you think this is a particularly important point. It's in the name: a-theism. If you're concerned with a comparison of worldviews which make positive claims apart from disagreeing with other points of view then instead of comparing atheism with theism you should compare (for example) secular humanism with a specific theistic religion.

 

[ding]

See post above this one.

See #78

They can only confirm their beliefs by arguing that every other belief system is wrong. They can only make critical theory arguments.

Since they are not "critical theory" arguments, you should stop calling them that. If your only point is that atheism in practice is a response to the theism of western religions, then I agree (see #78 linked above, 3rd paragraph), but it's not clear why you think this is a particularly important point. It's in the name: a-theism. If you're concerned with a comparison of worldviews which make positive claims apart from disagreeing with other points of view then instead of comparing atheism with theism you should compare (for example) secular humanism with a specific theistic religion.

Atheism and cultural Marxism are linked. At the time of WWI, the marxists expected a workers revolution. Instead the people reverted to loyalty of country. So they married behavioral science to Marxism to created cultural Marxism. It’s goal is to supplant loyalty to God, country and family with loyalty to state. Critical theory is the vehicle they use to achieve their objective.

 

[well named]

Atheism and cultural Marxism are linked.

All Marxists are atheists.*
Most atheists are not Marxists.
Characterizing atheism as essentially Marxist in character is false.

* close enough

--

Back to the general topic, let me try an analogy. Leaving aside this whole "critical theory" argument and just talking about atheism as being negative.

Imagine I started a pair of threads at the same time. The first asked whether it was ethical to only pursue negative or critical aims in relation to society. The other asked whether the anti-abortion movement could ever be more than a negative movement.

I expect very quickly someone would point out that the movement's negative goals in relation to abortion are motivated by positive values, and that's why they call themselves the "pro-life" movement. And that's correct. Yet, pro-life activism actually fits the definition of critical theory I used above much more closely than atheism. Pro-life activism meets all three criteria. Yet it's obvious that the social criticism made by pro-life activists is driven by a set of affirmative values.

The same is generally true of most atheists. Even very anti-religious atheists (which is not all atheists) are motivated in their hostility to religion by a set of affirmative values, some examples of which I mentioned in the other conversation we have been having, e.g. affirmation of an ethos tied to scientific epistemology, humanistic beliefs about equality, and so on. Anti-religious atheists oppose religion because they think it is antithetical to those values, just like pro-life activists oppose abortion because they believe it is antithetical to their values.

I think there's a more generally valid point to be made that -- for atheists who want to create a non-religious society -- there is a need for a coherent worldview and socially workable set of values that goes beyond mere opposition to religion. This could also be tied back to the conversation about whether or not it is possible or desirable to eliminate religion per se. But it's still a mistake to think that atheists necessarily lack such a worldview or such values, just like it would be a mistake to think pro-life activists lack such values.

 

[toobfreak]

All Marxists are atheists.

Well, Stupid, admitting that all Marxists are essentially a subset of atheism then claiming it false to say they have a commonality takes a lot of guts.

 

[well named]

Well, Stupid, admitting that all Marxists are essentially a subset of atheism then claiming it false to say they have a commonality takes a lot of guts.

All Marxists are also human. Does that mean that being human and being Marxist are linked in some important way? See also the fallacy of composition.

 

[toobfreak]

See also the fallacy of composition.

Why? You just demonstrated it beautifully in your invalid reasoning. All people MUST be human does NOT equate to all Marxists tending toward a particular ideological framework.

Call your college tomorrow and tell them you want a full refund.

 

[edthecynic]

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.

You understand neither mathematics nor physics.

 

[well named]

All people MUST be human does NOT equate to all Marxists tending toward a particular ideological framework.

I think you're confused about what ding and I were discussing, but if the example I gave doesn't help you see the problem with your logic than I'm afraid I'm not capable of assisting you further.

 

[ding]

Atheism and cultural Marxism are linked.

All Marxists are atheists.*
Most atheists are not Marxists.
Characterizing atheism as essentially Marxist in character is false.

* close enough

--

Back to the general topic, let me try an analogy. Leaving aside this whole "critical theory" argument and just talking about atheism as being negative.

Imagine I started a pair of threads at the same time. The first asked whether it was ethical to only pursue negative or critical aims in relation to society. The other asked whether the anti-abortion movement could ever be more than a negative movement.

I expect very quickly someone would point out that the movement's negative goals in relation to abortion are motivated by positive values, and that's why they call themselves the "pro-life" movement. And that's correct. Yet, pro-life activism actually fits the definition of critical theory I used above much more closely than atheism. Pro-life activism meets all three criteria. Yet it's obvious that the social criticism made by pro-life activists is driven by a set of affirmative values.

The same is generally true of most atheists. Even very anti-religious atheists (which is not all atheists) are motivated in their hostility to religion by a set of affirmative values, some examples of which I mentioned in the other conversation we have been having, e.g. affirmation of an ethos tied to scientific epistemology, humanistic beliefs about equality, and so on. Anti-religious atheists oppose religion because they think it is antithetical to those values, just like pro-life activists oppose abortion because they believe it is antithetical to their values.

I think there's a more generally valid point to be made that -- for atheists who want to create a non-religious society -- there is a need for a coherent worldview and socially workable set of values that goes beyond mere opposition to religion. This could also be tied back to the conversation about whether or not it is possible or desirable to eliminate religion per se. But it's still a mistake to think that atheists necessarily lack such a worldview or such values, just like it would be a mistake to think pro-life activists lack such values.

The Socialist Phenomenon by Igor Shafarevich

Socialism intentionally denies examination because it is irrational. There is no formal defined dogma of socialism. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something good, noble and just: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. Socialism seeks equality through uniformity and communal ownership Socialism has an extraordinary ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements. Socialists dismiss their defeats and ignore their incongruities. They desire big government and use big government to implement their morally relativistic social policies. Socialism is a religion. The religious nature of socialism explains their hostility towards traditional religions which is that of one rival religion over another. Their dogma is based on materialism, primitive instincts, atheism and the deification of man. They see no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural Marxism and normalization of deviance. They worship science but are the first to reject it when it suits their purposes. They can be identified by an external locus of control. Their religious doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and equality via uniformity and communal ownership. They practice 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. Something they never do.

 

[ding]

Atheism and cultural Marxism are linked.

All Marxists are atheists.*
Most atheists are not Marxists.
Characterizing atheism as essentially Marxist in character is false.

* close enough

--

Back to the general topic, let me try an analogy. Leaving aside this whole "critical theory" argument and just talking about atheism as being negative.

Imagine I started a pair of threads at the same time. The first asked whether it was ethical to only pursue negative or critical aims in relation to society. The other asked whether the anti-abortion movement could ever be more than a negative movement.

I expect very quickly someone would point out that the movement's negative goals in relation to abortion are motivated by positive values, and that's why they call themselves the "pro-life" movement. And that's correct. Yet, pro-life activism actually fits the definition of critical theory I used above much more closely than atheism. Pro-life activism meets all three criteria. Yet it's obvious that the social criticism made by pro-life activists is driven by a set of affirmative values.

The same is generally true of most atheists. Even very anti-religious atheists (which is not all atheists) are motivated in their hostility to religion by a set of affirmative values, some examples of which I mentioned in the other conversation we have been having, e.g. affirmation of an ethos tied to scientific epistemology, humanistic beliefs about equality, and so on. Anti-religious atheists oppose religion because they think it is antithetical to those values, just like pro-life activists oppose abortion because they believe it is antithetical to their values.

I think there's a more generally valid point to be made that -- for atheists who want to create a non-religious society -- there is a need for a coherent worldview and socially workable set of values that goes beyond mere opposition to religion. This could also be tied back to the conversation about whether or not it is possible or desirable to eliminate religion per se. But it's still a mistake to think that atheists necessarily lack such a worldview or such values, just like it would be a mistake to think pro-life activists lack such values.

Is it that you don't believe that Cultural Marxists married the work of Freud to Marxism or is it that you don't see anything wrong with this type of subversive behavioral engineering? Or maybe something else?

 

[well named]

That is not responsive to my post.