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

[dblack]

It's called materialism. It's a real thing and the logical conclusion of atheism.

Prove it.

Unless you believe that existence was created by something that isn't material, by definition, you must believe everything was created by something that is material. Can you tell me how this is wrong?

Yes I can. First of all, you're assuming that atheists don't "believe that existence was created by something that isn't material". Some do, some don't (that fallacy has tripped you up a number of times in this thread). Second, you're presuming that everything was "created", another unsupported premise.

Listen, you're clearly using a different definition of atheist. Can you tell us what that definition is? Mine is simple. An atheist is someone doesn't believe in gods. That's it. It seems your definition includes a lot more. Can you specify what all the "added features" are?

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

Show me how it was refuted. Explain your logic for me.

Logic? Like you trying to tell me what I believe? That is hardly logical.

No. The one where I explained how your beliefs were illogical. Materialists do not believe that anything exists beyond the material world and that all non-material things (like love, thought, music, etc.) proceed from material items. You disagreed with this but offered no explanation from where they proceeded from if not from material things. That is illogical.

One question for you. Can you prove God exists?

 

[ding]

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.

Show me how it was refuted. Explain your logic for me.

Logic? Like you trying to tell me what I believe? That is hardly logical.

No. The one where I explained how your beliefs were illogical. Materialists do not believe that anything exists beyond the material world and that all non-material things (like love, thought, music, etc.) proceed from material items. You disagreed with this but offered no explanation from where they proceeded from if not from material things. That is illogical.

One question for you. Can you prove God exists?

To myself, but not you. You have to do that for yourself.

 

[ding]

It's called materialism. It's a real thing and the logical conclusion of atheism.

Prove it.

Unless you believe that existence was created by something that isn't material, by definition, you must believe everything was created by something that is material. Can you tell me how this is wrong?

Yes I can. First of all, you're assuming that atheists don't "believe that existence was created by something that isn't material". Some do, some don't (that fallacy has tripped you up a number of times in this thread). Second, you're presuming that everything was "created", another unsupported premise.

Listen, you're clearly using a different definition of atheist. Can you tell us what that definition is? Mine is simple. An atheist is someone doesn't believe in gods. That's it. It seems your definition includes a lot more. Can you specify what all the "added features" are?

That doesn't prove anything.

Where does everything come from? From things that are made of material? Or things that are made of spirit?

Your answer is the proof you are asking for.

 

[dblack]

That doesn't prove anything.

It's not mean to. I'm describing the flaws in your argument.

Where does everything come from? From things that are made of material? Or things that are made of spirit?

I dunno.

 

[ding]

That doesn't prove anything.

It's not mean to. I'm describing the flaws in your argument.

Where does everything come from? From things that are made of material? Or things that are made of spirit?

I dunno.

That isn't describing the flaws in my argument. Here is an example of describing flaws in an argument.

You believe you are not a materialist but you don't believe that everything proceeded from spirit. Therefore, you must believe that everything proceeded from something which is material. And since you disagree with this your argument is illogical and flawed.

It is absolutely relevant that you do not know something but still hold a belief like you do. If you do not know that everything proceeded from spirit, then you do not know you are an atheist. But since you claim you are an atheist, you must believe that nothing proceeded from spirit. Therefore, you must believe that everything proceeded from material.

 

[WinterBorn]

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

Show me how it was refuted. Explain your logic for me.

Logic? Like you trying to tell me what I believe? That is hardly logical.

No. The one where I explained how your beliefs were illogical. Materialists do not believe that anything exists beyond the material world and that all non-material things (like love, thought, music, etc.) proceed from material items. You disagreed with this but offered no explanation from where they proceeded from if not from material things. That is illogical.

One question for you. Can you prove God exists?

To myself, but not you. You have to do that for yourself.

No, I am asking about actual proof.

 

[ding]

Show me how it was refuted. Explain your logic for me.

Logic? Like you trying to tell me what I believe? That is hardly logical.

No. The one where I explained how your beliefs were illogical. Materialists do not believe that anything exists beyond the material world and that all non-material things (like love, thought, music, etc.) proceed from material items. You disagreed with this but offered no explanation from where they proceeded from if not from material things. That is illogical.

One question for you. Can you prove God exists?

To myself, but not you. You have to do that for yourself.

No, I am asking about actual proof.

What kind of proof would you accept?

And, yes, I was talking about actual proof in my last reply.

 

[there4eyeM]

What does quantum physics tell us about the 'material'?
If what appears to be true turns out merely to be the reflection of something else, how do regard the way we looked at it before?

 

[ding]

What does quantum physics tell us about the 'material'?
If what appears to be true turns out merely to be the reflection of something else, how do regard the way we looked at it before?

There are all kinds of things that force matter to choose.

Quantum mechanics has been misused by many people when it comes to arguing for randomness. We live in a deterministic universe logically governed by rules where there has never been an uncaused event. Quantum mechanics follows the laws of conservation and entropy.

 

[ding]

If anyone wanted to see God in the laws of nature he really doesn't have to go any further than the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which tells us the direction of the universe is to become more disordered rather than ordered. Of course even the order we see in the universe doesn't violate the SLoT because the order that is created is created at a cost of loss of usable energy which is also a component of the SLoT.

 

[dblack]

You believe you are not a materialist but you don't believe that everything proceeded from spirit. Therefore, you must believe that everything proceeded from something which is material. And since you disagree with this your argument is illogical and flawed.

It is absolutely relevant that you do not know something but still hold a belief like you do. If you do not know that everything proceeded from spirit, then you do not know you are an atheist. But since you claim you are an atheist, you must believe that nothing proceeded from spirit. Therefore, you must believe that everything proceeded from material.

Unsupported claims bolded. Garbage in, garbage out.

 

[ding]

In fact, when we meet our maker and ask him why he didn't make himself known to us, his answer will most likely be why didn't you know me from what I have created? Why didn't you seek me out?

 

[ding]

You believe you are not a materialist but you don't believe that everything proceeded from spirit. Therefore, you must believe that everything proceeded from something which is material. And since you disagree with this your argument is illogical and flawed.

It is absolutely relevant that you do not know something but still hold a belief like you do. If you do not know that everything proceeded from spirit, then you do not know you are an atheist. But since you claim you are an atheist, you must believe that nothing proceeded from spirit. Therefore, you must believe that everything proceeded from material.

Unsupported claims bolded. Garbage in, garbage out.

Can you explain how it doesn't make sense using logic?

 

[WinterBorn]

Logic? Like you trying to tell me what I believe? That is hardly logical.

No. The one where I explained how your beliefs were illogical. Materialists do not believe that anything exists beyond the material world and that all non-material things (like love, thought, music, etc.) proceed from material items. You disagreed with this but offered no explanation from where they proceeded from if not from material things. That is illogical.

One question for you. Can you prove God exists?

To myself, but not you. You have to do that for yourself.

No, I am asking about actual proof.

What kind of proof would you accept?

And, yes, I was talking about actual proof in my last reply.

Proof that does not require faith. Proof that is not just for you.

 

[ding]

No. The one where I explained how your beliefs were illogical. Materialists do not believe that anything exists beyond the material world and that all non-material things (like love, thought, music, etc.) proceed from material items. You disagreed with this but offered no explanation from where they proceeded from if not from material things. That is illogical.

One question for you. Can you prove God exists?

To myself, but not you. You have to do that for yourself.

No, I am asking about actual proof.

What kind of proof would you accept?

And, yes, I was talking about actual proof in my last reply.

Proof that does not require faith. Proof that is not just for you.

Like what? Can you tell me specifically what it would take?

i wasn't arguing that the proof I have is not for you. I am arguing that there is no proof you will accept. You are proving my point when you can't tell me what proof you would accept.

 

[WinterBorn]

One question for you. Can you prove God exists?

To myself, but not you. You have to do that for yourself.

No, I am asking about actual proof.

What kind of proof would you accept?

And, yes, I was talking about actual proof in my last reply.

Proof that does not require faith. Proof that is not just for you.

Like what? Can you tell me specifically what it would take?

i wasn't arguing that the proof I have is not for you. I am arguing that there is no proof you will accept. You are proving my point when you can't tell me what proof you would accept.

Proof. I am not going to list specifications.

You said you can prove it to yourself, but not to me. Why can you prove it to yourself and not to me? Doesn't sound like proof.

 

[WinterBorn]

If you cannot prove that God exists, then you and I are both operating under our beliefs. Both are equally valid.

 

[deanrd]

If I had to choose between being an atheist and being part of the Cult of Trump, I would choose being an atheist every time.

The cult of Trump has replaced traditional Christianity.

 

[deanrd]

If you cannot prove that God exists, then you and I are both operating under our beliefs. Both are equally valid.

Name something else you believe in without a shred of evidence.