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

[ding]

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.

The problem with atheism is that god can't be fully proven nor fully disproven.

Its always going to be a problem for anyone to prove or disprove an idea that’s essentially meaningless.

If you really believed belief in God were meaningless you wouldn’t be here.

 

[ding]

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.

The problem with atheism is that god can't be fully proven nor fully disproven.

Speak for yourself. The evidence for God is all around and in you.

 

[ding]

Agreed. But anyone who attempts to subordinate religion are furthering the goals of Marxist subversives.

Totally irrelevant to the topic.

No. Critical theory is the vehicle used by cultural Marxists in the demoralization process.

It is totally relevant to the topic. It is a subversive practice intended to alter the culture. It was developed by behavioral scientists who married the work of Freud to Marx for the express purpose of bringing about a cultural revolution.

They even have a set agenda to achieve their goals.

1. Demoralization
2. Destabilization
3. Crisis
4. Normalization

If you want to make a thread about how critical theory is used my Marxists, go right ahead.

The fact that Marxists use it is irrelevant to the stated topic.

The stated topic is about atheism, not Marxism. But you have insisted on trying to draw a correlation between atheism and Marxism. They are not, repeat NOT, the same thing. And any attempt to paint them as the same thing is being dishonest and deviating from the stated topic.

It is related as atheism is a requirement of altering the culture.

But it is Marxism that is altering the culture, not atheism. If the topic is atheism, make it about atheism.

Atheism and Marxism are inseparable sisters.

 

[ding]

Listen, it's obvious that if you don't believe in God, you're a Marxist tool and contributing to the downfall of America. Get with the program.

No. Only if you behave as a Marxist tool.

 

[dblack]

Listen, it's obvious that if you don't believe in God, you're a Marxist tool and contributing to the downfall of America. Get with the program.

No. Only if you behave as a Marxist tool.

I agree. But that discounts half the thread. Glad to see you changed your mind.

 

[dblack]

Totally irrelevant to the topic.

No. Critical theory is the vehicle used by cultural Marxists in the demoralization process.

It is totally relevant to the topic. It is a subversive practice intended to alter the culture. It was developed by behavioral scientists who married the work of Freud to Marx for the express purpose of bringing about a cultural revolution.

They even have a set agenda to achieve their goals.

1. Demoralization
2. Destabilization
3. Crisis
4. Normalization

If you want to make a thread about how critical theory is used my Marxists, go right ahead.

The fact that Marxists use it is irrelevant to the stated topic.

The stated topic is about atheism, not Marxism. But you have insisted on trying to draw a correlation between atheism and Marxism. They are not, repeat NOT, the same thing. And any attempt to paint them as the same thing is being dishonest and deviating from the stated topic.

It is related as atheism is a requirement of altering the culture.

But it is Marxism that is altering the culture, not atheism. If the topic is atheism, make it about atheism.

Atheism and Marxism are inseparable sisters.

That s sheer bullshit.

 

[ding]

But anyone who attempts to subordinate religion are furthering the goals of Marxist subversives.

Seems like we're just stuck here:

I don't know exactly where you would set the bounds of "militant atheism" but it's clearly the case that many people we might classify as such are not Marxists. None of the most famous "new atheists" (e.g. Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, etc.) are Marxists, as far as I know. It seems like the mistake you are making is in thinking that if two groups of people share a common goal then they must either entirely share the same beliefs or that one group must be a dupe of the other. But that doesn't follow at all. To make an analogy, there are libertarian posters on this board with whom I share some views, for example opposition to excessive state power, or the war on drugs, or trends towards elements of a police state. But in other areas my views diverge sharply from theirs, e.g. progressive taxation and social policy. That fact that we have some overlapping aims and views does not make either of us dupes of the other.

Similarly, Marxists and "militant atheists" share an antipathy towards religion and some common goals about reducing the power of religious institutions. Some also share a belief in materialism, although the dialectical materialism of Marxism is sometimes a bit idiosyncratic. But otherwise members of these two groups often have very few other political views in common. Someone like Dennett is not attempting to foment a proletarian revolution.

All atheists are materialists by definition.

 

[ding]

No. Critical theory is the vehicle used by cultural Marxists in the demoralization process.

It is totally relevant to the topic. It is a subversive practice intended to alter the culture. It was developed by behavioral scientists who married the work of Freud to Marx for the express purpose of bringing about a cultural revolution.

They even have a set agenda to achieve their goals.

1. Demoralization
2. Destabilization
3. Crisis
4. Normalization

If you want to make a thread about how critical theory is used my Marxists, go right ahead.

The fact that Marxists use it is irrelevant to the stated topic.

The stated topic is about atheism, not Marxism. But you have insisted on trying to draw a correlation between atheism and Marxism. They are not, repeat NOT, the same thing. And any attempt to paint them as the same thing is being dishonest and deviating from the stated topic.

It is related as atheism is a requirement of altering the culture.

But it is Marxism that is altering the culture, not atheism. If the topic is atheism, make it about atheism.

Atheism and Marxism are inseparable sisters.

That s sheer bullshit.

Not according to the founding fathers of communism. They are the ones who said it.

 

[ding]

Yuri Bezmenov, former KGB colonel, says otherwise?
Obviously a man you can trust.

Yes. There is no better witness than Yuri Bezmenov. He did it.

 

[ding]

Listen, it's obvious that if you don't believe in God, you're a Marxist tool and contributing to the downfall of America. Get with the program.

No. Only if you behave as a Marxist tool.

I agree. But that discounts half the thread. Glad to see you changed your mind.

I don’t see how it does.

 

[dblack]

But anyone who attempts to subordinate religion are furthering the goals of Marxist subversives.

Seems like we're just stuck here:

I don't know exactly where you would set the bounds of "militant atheism" but it's clearly the case that many people we might classify as such are not Marxists. None of the most famous "new atheists" (e.g. Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, etc.) are Marxists, as far as I know. It seems like the mistake you are making is in thinking that if two groups of people share a common goal then they must either entirely share the same beliefs or that one group must be a dupe of the other. But that doesn't follow at all. To make an analogy, there are libertarian posters on this board with whom I share some views, for example opposition to excessive state power, or the war on drugs, or trends towards elements of a police state. But in other areas my views diverge sharply from theirs, e.g. progressive taxation and social policy. That fact that we have some overlapping aims and views does not make either of us dupes of the other.

Similarly, Marxists and "militant atheists" share an antipathy towards religion and some common goals about reducing the power of religious institutions. Some also share a belief in materialism, although the dialectical materialism of Marxism is sometimes a bit idiosyncratic. But otherwise members of these two groups often have very few other political views in common. Someone like Dennett is not attempting to foment a proletarian revolution.

All atheists are materialists by definition.

But anyone who attempts to subordinate religion are furthering the goals of Marxist subversives.

Seems like we're just stuck here:

I don't know exactly where you would set the bounds of "militant atheism" but it's clearly the case that many people we might classify as such are not Marxists. None of the most famous "new atheists" (e.g. Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, etc.) are Marxists, as far as I know. It seems like the mistake you are making is in thinking that if two groups of people share a common goal then they must either entirely share the same beliefs or that one group must be a dupe of the other. But that doesn't follow at all. To make an analogy, there are libertarian posters on this board with whom I share some views, for example opposition to excessive state power, or the war on drugs, or trends towards elements of a police state. But in other areas my views diverge sharply from theirs, e.g. progressive taxation and social policy. That fact that we have some overlapping aims and views does not make either of us dupes of the other.

Similarly, Marxists and "militant atheists" share an antipathy towards religion and some common goals about reducing the power of religious institutions. Some also share a belief in materialism, although the dialectical materialism of Marxism is sometimes a bit idiosyncratic. But otherwise members of these two groups often have very few other political views in common. Someone like Dennett is not attempting to foment a proletarian revolution.

All atheists are materialists by definition.

Nope. What definition of atheism are you imagining?

 

[Karl Rand]

The American obsession with Marxism, a largely defunct ideology, blinds many of you to the real danger Russia poses. The Russian nation is now a criminal form of state capitalism not far removed from a giganitic, militarised version of the Mafia. As to this silly claim Russia is atheistic where were you all when the Russian Orthodox Church clawed it’s way back into political power and very well organised corruption?

As to the term ‘materialism’ losely thrown around here a clearer indication of what’s being refered to would help. Are we talking about Central State Materialism, Dialectical Materialism, Emergent Materialism, Non-reductive Materialism or some other ism?
Maybe Engel’s Historical Materialism? I can only guess from context but it appears Central State Materialism could be what’s meant, however we can’t be sure.

On the other hand this could be a simple attempt to distinguish between our earthly material realm and that of an imagined ‘spiritual realm'.

 

[ding]

But anyone who attempts to subordinate religion are furthering the goals of Marxist subversives.

Seems like we're just stuck here:

I don't know exactly where you would set the bounds of "militant atheism" but it's clearly the case that many people we might classify as such are not Marxists. None of the most famous "new atheists" (e.g. Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, etc.) are Marxists, as far as I know. It seems like the mistake you are making is in thinking that if two groups of people share a common goal then they must either entirely share the same beliefs or that one group must be a dupe of the other. But that doesn't follow at all. To make an analogy, there are libertarian posters on this board with whom I share some views, for example opposition to excessive state power, or the war on drugs, or trends towards elements of a police state. But in other areas my views diverge sharply from theirs, e.g. progressive taxation and social policy. That fact that we have some overlapping aims and views does not make either of us dupes of the other.

Similarly, Marxists and "militant atheists" share an antipathy towards religion and some common goals about reducing the power of religious institutions. Some also share a belief in materialism, although the dialectical materialism of Marxism is sometimes a bit idiosyncratic. But otherwise members of these two groups often have very few other political views in common. Someone like Dennett is not attempting to foment a proletarian revolution.

All atheists are materialists by definition.

But anyone who attempts to subordinate religion are furthering the goals of Marxist subversives.

Seems like we're just stuck here:

I don't know exactly where you would set the bounds of "militant atheism" but it's clearly the case that many people we might classify as such are not Marxists. None of the most famous "new atheists" (e.g. Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, etc.) are Marxists, as far as I know. It seems like the mistake you are making is in thinking that if two groups of people share a common goal then they must either entirely share the same beliefs or that one group must be a dupe of the other. But that doesn't follow at all. To make an analogy, there are libertarian posters on this board with whom I share some views, for example opposition to excessive state power, or the war on drugs, or trends towards elements of a police state. But in other areas my views diverge sharply from theirs, e.g. progressive taxation and social policy. That fact that we have some overlapping aims and views does not make either of us dupes of the other.

Similarly, Marxists and "militant atheists" share an antipathy towards religion and some common goals about reducing the power of religious institutions. Some also share a belief in materialism, although the dialectical materialism of Marxism is sometimes a bit idiosyncratic. But otherwise members of these two groups often have very few other political views in common. Someone like Dennett is not attempting to foment a proletarian revolution.

All atheists are materialists by definition.

Nope. What definition of atheism are you imagining?

An atheist does not believe in the spiritual. An atheist does not believe we are anything more than matter. An atheist does not believe that anything exists beyond the material world.

 

[dblack]

If you want to make a thread about how critical theory is used my Marxists, go right ahead.

The fact that Marxists use it is irrelevant to the stated topic.

The stated topic is about atheism, not Marxism. But you have insisted on trying to draw a correlation between atheism and Marxism. They are not, repeat NOT, the same thing. And any attempt to paint them as the same thing is being dishonest and deviating from the stated topic.

It is related as atheism is a requirement of altering the culture.

But it is Marxism that is altering the culture, not atheism. If the topic is atheism, make it about atheism.

Atheism and Marxism are inseparable sisters.

That s sheer bullshit.

Not according to the founding fathers of communism. They are the ones who said it.

I don't give one rat's ass what the founders of communism said. They're as full of shit as you are.

 

[ding]

The American obsession with Marxism, a largely defunct ideology, blinds many of you to the real danger Russia poses. The Russian nation is now a criminal form of state capitalism not far removed from a giganitic, militarised version of the Mafia. As to this silly claim Russia is atheistic where were you all when the Russian Orthodox Church clawed it’s way back into political power and organised corruption?

That is exactly the argument I would expect a Marxist to make.

 

[ding]

It is related as atheism is a requirement of altering the culture.

But it is Marxism that is altering the culture, not atheism. If the topic is atheism, make it about atheism.

Atheism and Marxism are inseparable sisters.

That s sheer bullshit.

Not according to the founding fathers of communism. They are the ones who said it.

I don't give one rat's ass what the founders of communism said. They're as full of shit as you are.

They certainly know better than you what it takes to make people become communists.

 

[dblack]

But anyone who attempts to subordinate religion are furthering the goals of Marxist subversives.

Seems like we're just stuck here:

I don't know exactly where you would set the bounds of "militant atheism" but it's clearly the case that many people we might classify as such are not Marxists. None of the most famous "new atheists" (e.g. Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, etc.) are Marxists, as far as I know. It seems like the mistake you are making is in thinking that if two groups of people share a common goal then they must either entirely share the same beliefs or that one group must be a dupe of the other. But that doesn't follow at all. To make an analogy, there are libertarian posters on this board with whom I share some views, for example opposition to excessive state power, or the war on drugs, or trends towards elements of a police state. But in other areas my views diverge sharply from theirs, e.g. progressive taxation and social policy. That fact that we have some overlapping aims and views does not make either of us dupes of the other.

Similarly, Marxists and "militant atheists" share an antipathy towards religion and some common goals about reducing the power of religious institutions. Some also share a belief in materialism, although the dialectical materialism of Marxism is sometimes a bit idiosyncratic. But otherwise members of these two groups often have very few other political views in common. Someone like Dennett is not attempting to foment a proletarian revolution.

All atheists are materialists by definition.

But anyone who attempts to subordinate religion are furthering the goals of Marxist subversives.

Seems like we're just stuck here:

I don't know exactly where you would set the bounds of "militant atheism" but it's clearly the case that many people we might classify as such are not Marxists. None of the most famous "new atheists" (e.g. Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, etc.) are Marxists, as far as I know. It seems like the mistake you are making is in thinking that if two groups of people share a common goal then they must either entirely share the same beliefs or that one group must be a dupe of the other. But that doesn't follow at all. To make an analogy, there are libertarian posters on this board with whom I share some views, for example opposition to excessive state power, or the war on drugs, or trends towards elements of a police state. But in other areas my views diverge sharply from theirs, e.g. progressive taxation and social policy. That fact that we have some overlapping aims and views does not make either of us dupes of the other.

Similarly, Marxists and "militant atheists" share an antipathy towards religion and some common goals about reducing the power of religious institutions. Some also share a belief in materialism, although the dialectical materialism of Marxism is sometimes a bit idiosyncratic. But otherwise members of these two groups often have very few other political views in common. Someone like Dennett is not attempting to foment a proletarian revolution.

All atheists are materialists by definition.

• Nope. What definition of atheism are you imagining?

An atheist does not believe in the spiritual. An atheist does not believe we are anything more than matter. An atheist does not believe that anything exists beyond the material world.

An atheist doesn't believe in gods. The rest is your imagination.

 

[ding]

But anyone who attempts to subordinate religion are furthering the goals of Marxist subversives.

Seems like we're just stuck here:

I don't know exactly where you would set the bounds of "militant atheism" but it's clearly the case that many people we might classify as such are not Marxists. None of the most famous "new atheists" (e.g. Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, etc.) are Marxists, as far as I know. It seems like the mistake you are making is in thinking that if two groups of people share a common goal then they must either entirely share the same beliefs or that one group must be a dupe of the other. But that doesn't follow at all. To make an analogy, there are libertarian posters on this board with whom I share some views, for example opposition to excessive state power, or the war on drugs, or trends towards elements of a police state. But in other areas my views diverge sharply from theirs, e.g. progressive taxation and social policy. That fact that we have some overlapping aims and views does not make either of us dupes of the other.

Similarly, Marxists and "militant atheists" share an antipathy towards religion and some common goals about reducing the power of religious institutions. Some also share a belief in materialism, although the dialectical materialism of Marxism is sometimes a bit idiosyncratic. But otherwise members of these two groups often have very few other political views in common. Someone like Dennett is not attempting to foment a proletarian revolution.

All atheists are materialists by definition.

But anyone who attempts to subordinate religion are furthering the goals of Marxist subversives.

Seems like we're just stuck here:

I don't know exactly where you would set the bounds of "militant atheism" but it's clearly the case that many people we might classify as such are not Marxists. None of the most famous "new atheists" (e.g. Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, etc.) are Marxists, as far as I know. It seems like the mistake you are making is in thinking that if two groups of people share a common goal then they must either entirely share the same beliefs or that one group must be a dupe of the other. But that doesn't follow at all. To make an analogy, there are libertarian posters on this board with whom I share some views, for example opposition to excessive state power, or the war on drugs, or trends towards elements of a police state. But in other areas my views diverge sharply from theirs, e.g. progressive taxation and social policy. That fact that we have some overlapping aims and views does not make either of us dupes of the other.

Similarly, Marxists and "militant atheists" share an antipathy towards religion and some common goals about reducing the power of religious institutions. Some also share a belief in materialism, although the dialectical materialism of Marxism is sometimes a bit idiosyncratic. But otherwise members of these two groups often have very few other political views in common. Someone like Dennett is not attempting to foment a proletarian revolution.

All atheists are materialists by definition.

• Nope. What definition of atheism are you imagining?

An atheist does not believe in the spiritual. An atheist does not believe we are anything more than matter. An atheist does not believe that anything exists beyond the material world.

An atheist doesn't believe in gods. The rest is your imagination.

And you need to post in a religious forum to tell me that an atheist doesn’t believe in God?

No. So there must be another reason you are here. And that is to spread your beliefs.

 

[dblack]

Seems like we're just stuck here:

All atheists are materialists by definition.

Seems like we're just stuck here:

All atheists are materialists by definition.

• Nope. What definition of atheism are you imagining?

An atheist does not believe in the spiritual. An atheist does not believe we are anything more than matter. An atheist does not believe that anything exists beyond the material world.

An atheist doesn't believe in gods. The rest is your imagination.

And you need to post in a religious forum to tell me that?

No. So there must be another reason you are here. And that is to spread your beliefs.

Nope. Just defending them. You posted the fucking thread.

 

[ding]

All atheists are materialists by definition.

All atheists are materialists by definition.

• Nope. What definition of atheism are you imagining?

An atheist does not believe in the spiritual. An atheist does not believe we are anything more than matter. An atheist does not believe that anything exists beyond the material world.

An atheist doesn't believe in gods. The rest is your imagination.

And you need to post in a religious forum to tell me that?

No. So there must be another reason you are here. And that is to spread your beliefs.

Nope. Just defending them. You posted the fucking thread.

Yes. I did post this thread. It is true that the only argument an atheist can make is to criticize the beliefs of those who believe in God. You literally cannot make a positive case for atheism because you cannot prove a negative. Why do you need to defend that?