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

[WinterBorn]

But you are certain it does not proceed from God, right?

Because you are certain there is no God, right?

I do not believe there is a God. There is no certainty on either side of the argument.

So you choose to believe there is no creator because why?

Because otherwise I have no idea where you believe these non-material things proceed from if not from something that isn't material.

Which is why I believe you are a materialist.

Your logic only works if you assume there was a beginning to everything. Again, neither of us knows that for a fact.

You can believe what you want. But I am telling you differently. And which of us do you suppose knows me (and my beliefs) better?

Ding just can't comprehend why anyone else won't confess that they are a sinner and worthless pice of shit and then get down on their knees and blubber to Jesus for forgiveness when it was so easy for him.

He never suspects that some people have no need to be forgiven.

And that's why I know your intention is disingenuous. I am not arguing for a specific flavor of God. I am arguing for a creator.

You seem to be arguing against that which is why I don't believe you when you say you believe in God.

I am not arguing any such thing. I am stating my beliefs. Which is at the crux of my being an atheist.

 

[hobelim]

But you are certain it does not proceed from God, right?

Because you are certain there is no God, right?

I do not believe there is a God. There is no certainty on either side of the argument.

So you choose to believe there is no creator because why?

Because otherwise I have no idea where you believe these non-material things proceed from if not from something that isn't material.

Which is why I believe you are a materialist.

Your logic only works if you assume there was a beginning to everything. Again, neither of us knows that for a fact.

You can believe what you want. But I am telling you differently. And which of us do you suppose knows me (and my beliefs) better?

Ding just can't comprehend why anyone else won't confess that they are a sinner and worthless pice of shit and then get down on their knees and blubber to Jesus for forgiveness when it was so easy for him.

He never suspects that some people have no need to be forgiven.

And that's why I know your intention is disingenuous. I am not arguing for a specific flavor of God. I am arguing for a creator.

You seem to be arguing against that which is why I don't believe you when you say you believe in God.

You are arguing for a creator based on your stupid interpretation of the story in genesis where it is said that God created heaven and earth which is not and never was about the beginning of the universe but the establishment of divine law.

 

[Taz]

I do not believe there is a God. There is no certainty on either side of the argument.

So you choose to believe there is no creator because why?

Because otherwise I have no idea where you believe these non-material things proceed from if not from something that isn't material.

Which is why I believe you are a materialist.

Your logic only works if you assume there was a beginning to everything. Again, neither of us knows that for a fact.

You can believe what you want. But I am telling you differently. And which of us do you suppose knows me (and my beliefs) better?

Ding just can't comprehend why anyone else won't confess that they are a sinner and worthless pice of shit and then get down on their knees and blubber to Jesus for forgiveness when it was so easy for him.

He never suspects that some people have no need to be forgiven.

And that's why I know your intention is disingenuous. I am not arguing for a specific flavor of God. I am arguing for a creator.

You seem to be arguing against that which is why I don't believe you when you say you believe in God.

You are arguing for a creator based on your stupid interpretation of the story in genesis where it is said that God created heaven and earth which is not and never was about the beginning of the universe but the establishment of divine law.

So when was the highway to hell created?

 

[hobelim]

Let me be very clear here, I believe that God can be discovered differently by different people. That God does not care which religion you practice. Only Hobelim cares about that.

God doesn't doesn't care about what religion you practice? Only I do?

lol... did you never actually read the bible?

 

[ding]

But you are certain it does not proceed from God, right?

Because you are certain there is no God, right?

I do not believe there is a God. There is no certainty on either side of the argument.

So you choose to believe there is no creator because why?

Because otherwise I have no idea where you believe these non-material things proceed from if not from something that isn't material.

Which is why I believe you are a materialist.

Your logic only works if you assume there was a beginning to everything. Again, neither of us knows that for a fact.

You can believe what you want. But I am telling you differently. And which of us do you suppose knows me (and my beliefs) better?

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics confirm there was a beginning.

So I have tons of evidence that points to a beginning.

What evidence do you have that says there wasn't?

And if you have no evidence to believe there was no beginning, why would you choose to believe that when there is tons of evidence to support that there is?

All of those things point to a Big Bang. Which provides scientific evidence that there was no God involved, but a cosmic event that occurred naturally.

And all the matter that was involved in the Big Bang existed before the Big Bang. The best theory I have seen is that the universe is still expanding from the Big Bang. When it stops expanding, it will begin to contract. Eventually, all the matter will come together into one place. The laws of physics say that when this matter reaches a certain mass, the Big Bang will happen again.

Nothing in the numerous things you quoted suggest that the matter and energy was created at the time of the Big Bang. In fact, the 1st Law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Except that the laws of nature were in place before space and time. Which means that the potential for all of those non-material things you believe in existed before space and time began. Which means that non-material things existed before space and time.

Why are you back tracking now though? You argued that my belief was based upon an assumption of a beginning, right?

Are you arguing that the universe is infinite acting? That it always existed as in forever? The second law of thermodynamics precludes that. The idea of a cyclical universe is dead for precisely that reason. As time approaches infinity, the universe approaches thermal equilibrium. This we do not see.

 

[ding]

Let me be very clear here, I believe that God can be discovered differently by different people. That God does not care which religion you practice. Only Hobelim cares about that.

God doesn't doesn't care about what religion you practice? Only I do?

lol... did you never actually read the bible?

No, from your posts.

 

[hobelim]

So you choose to believe there is no creator because why?

Because otherwise I have no idea where you believe these non-material things proceed from if not from something that isn't material.

Which is why I believe you are a materialist.

Your logic only works if you assume there was a beginning to everything. Again, neither of us knows that for a fact.

You can believe what you want. But I am telling you differently. And which of us do you suppose knows me (and my beliefs) better?

Ding just can't comprehend why anyone else won't confess that they are a sinner and worthless pice of shit and then get down on their knees and blubber to Jesus for forgiveness when it was so easy for him.

He never suspects that some people have no need to be forgiven.

And that's why I know your intention is disingenuous. I am not arguing for a specific flavor of God. I am arguing for a creator.

You seem to be arguing against that which is why I don't believe you when you say you believe in God.

You are arguing for a creator based on your stupid interpretation of the story in genesis where it is said that God created heaven and earth which is not and never was about the beginning of the universe but the establishment of divine law.

So when was the highway to hell created?

At the exact moment that light was established.

Like Jesus said, "If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin."

 

[WinterBorn]

So you choose to believe there is no creator because why?

Because otherwise I have no idea where you believe these non-material things proceed from if not from something that isn't material.

Which is why I believe you are a materialist.

Your logic only works if you assume there was a beginning to everything. Again, neither of us knows that for a fact.

You can believe what you want. But I am telling you differently. And which of us do you suppose knows me (and my beliefs) better?

Ding just can't comprehend why anyone else won't confess that they are a sinner and worthless pice of shit and then get down on their knees and blubber to Jesus for forgiveness when it was so easy for him.

He never suspects that some people have no need to be forgiven.

And that's why I know your intention is disingenuous. I am not arguing for a specific flavor of God. I am arguing for a creator.

You seem to be arguing against that which is why I don't believe you when you say you believe in God.

You are arguing for a creator based on your stupid interpretation of the story in genesis where it is said that God created heaven and earth which is not and never was about the beginning of the universe but the establishment of divine law.

So when was the highway to hell created?

July 27th, 1979

 

[hobelim]

Let me be very clear here, I believe that God can be discovered differently by different people. That God does not care which religion you practice. Only Hobelim cares about that.

God doesn't doesn't care about what religion you practice? Only I do?

lol... did you never actually read the bible?

No, from your posts.

lol...

You can't weasel out of this one.

You said that God does not care about what religion you follow.

Who in their right mind is going to believe anything you say now?

 

[dblack]

So since you do not believe that anything exists beyond the material world, such as God or spirit, then you must believe the non-material things are a result of material interactions.

I never said that nothing exists beyond the material world.

By definition you are a materialist. All atheists are.

No they aren't. The definition of atheist doesn't say anything about materialism. You are tirelessly trying to decorate it with your own presumptions, but they aren't valid. It's the some vs. all thing again. Many atheists are materialists, but not all. You seem to have a real problem accepting that concept..

 

[ding]

But you are certain it does not proceed from God, right?

Because you are certain there is no God, right?

I do not believe there is a God. There is no certainty on either side of the argument.

So you choose to believe there is no creator because why?

Because otherwise I have no idea where you believe these non-material things proceed from if not from something that isn't material.

Which is why I believe you are a materialist.

Your logic only works if you assume there was a beginning to everything. Again, neither of us knows that for a fact.

You can believe what you want. But I am telling you differently. And which of us do you suppose knows me (and my beliefs) better?

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics confirm there was a beginning.

So I have tons of evidence that points to a beginning.

What evidence do you have that says there wasn't?

And if you have no evidence to believe there was no beginning, why would you choose to believe that when there is tons of evidence to support that there is?

All of those things point to a Big Bang. Which provides scientific evidence that there was no God involved, but a cosmic event that occurred naturally.

And all the matter that was involved in the Big Bang existed before the Big Bang. The best theory I have seen is that the universe is still expanding from the Big Bang. When it stops expanding, it will begin to contract. Eventually, all the matter will come together into one place. The laws of physics say that when this matter reaches a certain mass, the Big Bang will happen again.

Nothing in the numerous things you quoted suggest that the matter and energy was created at the time of the Big Bang. In fact, the 1st Law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Why am I the only one presenting evidence for my beliefs?

 

[WinterBorn]

I do not believe there is a God. There is no certainty on either side of the argument.

So you choose to believe there is no creator because why?

Because otherwise I have no idea where you believe these non-material things proceed from if not from something that isn't material.

Which is why I believe you are a materialist.

Your logic only works if you assume there was a beginning to everything. Again, neither of us knows that for a fact.

You can believe what you want. But I am telling you differently. And which of us do you suppose knows me (and my beliefs) better?

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics confirm there was a beginning.

So I have tons of evidence that points to a beginning.

What evidence do you have that says there wasn't?

And if you have no evidence to believe there was no beginning, why would you choose to believe that when there is tons of evidence to support that there is?

All of those things point to a Big Bang. Which provides scientific evidence that there was no God involved, but a cosmic event that occurred naturally.

And all the matter that was involved in the Big Bang existed before the Big Bang. The best theory I have seen is that the universe is still expanding from the Big Bang. When it stops expanding, it will begin to contract. Eventually, all the matter will come together into one place. The laws of physics say that when this matter reaches a certain mass, the Big Bang will happen again.

Nothing in the numerous things you quoted suggest that the matter and energy was created at the time of the Big Bang. In fact, the 1st Law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Except that the laws of nature were in place before space and time. Which means that the potential for all of those non-material things you believe in existed before space and time began. Which means that non-material things existed before space and time.

Why are you back tracking now though? You argued that my belief was based upon an assumption of a beginning, right?

Are you arguing that the universe is infinite acting? That it always existed as in forever? The second law of thermodynamics precludes that. The idea of a cyclical universe is dead for precisely that reason. As time approaches infinity, the universe approaches thermal equilibrium. This we do not see.

"Except that the laws of nature were in place before space and time. Which means that the potential for all of those non-material things you believe in existed before space and time began. Which means that non-material things existed before space and time."

And you know this how?

 

[Taz]

Why am I the only one presenting evidence for my beliefs?

 

[ding]

I do not believe there is a God. There is no certainty on either side of the argument.

So you choose to believe there is no creator because why?

Because otherwise I have no idea where you believe these non-material things proceed from if not from something that isn't material.

Which is why I believe you are a materialist.

Your logic only works if you assume there was a beginning to everything. Again, neither of us knows that for a fact.

You can believe what you want. But I am telling you differently. And which of us do you suppose knows me (and my beliefs) better?

Ding just can't comprehend why anyone else won't confess that they are a sinner and worthless pice of shit and then get down on their knees and blubber to Jesus for forgiveness when it was so easy for him.

He never suspects that some people have no need to be forgiven.

And that's why I know your intention is disingenuous. I am not arguing for a specific flavor of God. I am arguing for a creator.

You seem to be arguing against that which is why I don't believe you when you say you believe in God.

I am not arguing any such thing. I am stating my beliefs. Which is at the crux of my being an atheist.

The post you are replying to was not directed to you. It was directed to Hobelim. Check the comment stream.

 

[WinterBorn]

I do not believe there is a God. There is no certainty on either side of the argument.

So you choose to believe there is no creator because why?

Because otherwise I have no idea where you believe these non-material things proceed from if not from something that isn't material.

Which is why I believe you are a materialist.

Your logic only works if you assume there was a beginning to everything. Again, neither of us knows that for a fact.

You can believe what you want. But I am telling you differently. And which of us do you suppose knows me (and my beliefs) better?

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics confirm there was a beginning.

So I have tons of evidence that points to a beginning.

What evidence do you have that says there wasn't?

And if you have no evidence to believe there was no beginning, why would you choose to believe that when there is tons of evidence to support that there is?

All of those things point to a Big Bang. Which provides scientific evidence that there was no God involved, but a cosmic event that occurred naturally.

And all the matter that was involved in the Big Bang existed before the Big Bang. The best theory I have seen is that the universe is still expanding from the Big Bang. When it stops expanding, it will begin to contract. Eventually, all the matter will come together into one place. The laws of physics say that when this matter reaches a certain mass, the Big Bang will happen again.

Nothing in the numerous things you quoted suggest that the matter and energy was created at the time of the Big Bang. In fact, the 1st Law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Why am I the only one presenting evidence for my beliefs?

There is no evidence for God. My being an atheist means I do not believe in God. How does one present evidence for something to NOT exist?

And why should I present evidence for a belief, of lack of belief? You are the one who has continually made claims about what atheists are and what they believe.

 

[WinterBorn]

So since you do not believe that anything exists beyond the material world, such as God or spirit, then you must believe the non-material things are a result of material interactions.

I never said that nothing exists beyond the material world.

By definition you are a materialist. All atheists are.

No they aren't. The definition of atheist doesn't say anything about materialism. You are tirelessly trying to decorate it with your own presumptions, but they aren't valid. It's the some vs. all thing again. Many atheists are materialists, but not all. You seem to have a real problem accepting that concept..

Thank you.

He continues to try and define what we are and what we believe. I guess it makes his argument easier.

 

[dblack]

You can speak of your experiences all you want but you can't refute the logic.

When your facts are shown to be wrong, and your reasoning shown to be fallacious - that's refutation.

 

[WinterBorn]

So you choose to believe there is no creator because why?

Because otherwise I have no idea where you believe these non-material things proceed from if not from something that isn't material.

Which is why I believe you are a materialist.

Your logic only works if you assume there was a beginning to everything. Again, neither of us knows that for a fact.

You can believe what you want. But I am telling you differently. And which of us do you suppose knows me (and my beliefs) better?

Ding just can't comprehend why anyone else won't confess that they are a sinner and worthless pice of shit and then get down on their knees and blubber to Jesus for forgiveness when it was so easy for him.

He never suspects that some people have no need to be forgiven.

And that's why I know your intention is disingenuous. I am not arguing for a specific flavor of God. I am arguing for a creator.

You seem to be arguing against that which is why I don't believe you when you say you believe in God.

I am not arguing any such thing. I am stating my beliefs. Which is at the crux of my being an atheist.

The post you are replying to was not directed to you. It was directed to Hobelim. Check the comment stream.

As long as you post on a public forum, anyone can reply.

 

[ding]

So you choose to believe there is no creator because why?

Because otherwise I have no idea where you believe these non-material things proceed from if not from something that isn't material.

Which is why I believe you are a materialist.

Your logic only works if you assume there was a beginning to everything. Again, neither of us knows that for a fact.

You can believe what you want. But I am telling you differently. And which of us do you suppose knows me (and my beliefs) better?

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics confirm there was a beginning.

So I have tons of evidence that points to a beginning.

What evidence do you have that says there wasn't?

And if you have no evidence to believe there was no beginning, why would you choose to believe that when there is tons of evidence to support that there is?

All of those things point to a Big Bang. Which provides scientific evidence that there was no God involved, but a cosmic event that occurred naturally.

And all the matter that was involved in the Big Bang existed before the Big Bang. The best theory I have seen is that the universe is still expanding from the Big Bang. When it stops expanding, it will begin to contract. Eventually, all the matter will come together into one place. The laws of physics say that when this matter reaches a certain mass, the Big Bang will happen again.

Nothing in the numerous things you quoted suggest that the matter and energy was created at the time of the Big Bang. In fact, the 1st Law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Except that the laws of nature were in place before space and time. Which means that the potential for all of those non-material things you believe in existed before space and time began. Which means that non-material things existed before space and time.

Why are you back tracking now though? You argued that my belief was based upon an assumption of a beginning, right?

Are you arguing that the universe is infinite acting? That it always existed as in forever? The second law of thermodynamics precludes that. The idea of a cyclical universe is dead for precisely that reason. As time approaches infinity, the universe approaches thermal equilibrium. This we do not see.

"Except that the laws of nature were in place before space and time. Which means that the potential for all of those non-material things you believe in existed before space and time began. Which means that non-material things existed before space and time."

And you know this how?

Actually, cosmologists and physicists say this.

They say this because space and time were created by following the laws of conservation and quantum mechanics.



I am beginning to think you have not looked at anything I have posted.

 

[ding]

Your logic only works if you assume there was a beginning to everything. Again, neither of us knows that for a fact.

You can believe what you want. But I am telling you differently. And which of us do you suppose knows me (and my beliefs) better?

Ding just can't comprehend why anyone else won't confess that they are a sinner and worthless pice of shit and then get down on their knees and blubber to Jesus for forgiveness when it was so easy for him.

He never suspects that some people have no need to be forgiven.

And that's why I know your intention is disingenuous. I am not arguing for a specific flavor of God. I am arguing for a creator.

You seem to be arguing against that which is why I don't believe you when you say you believe in God.

I am not arguing any such thing. I am stating my beliefs. Which is at the crux of my being an atheist.

The post you are replying to was not directed to you. It was directed to Hobelim. Check the comment stream.

As long as you post on a public forum, anyone can reply.

Right, but I never said that you were arguing such a thing. I said Hobelim did.