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

[WinterBorn]

"But if you are an atheist you must believe incorporeal things originate only from material things"??

I must? According to whom? Why do you think you get to define who I am? You have done it repeatedly in this thread. Perhaps my beliefs are seen as a threat to yours?

I do not believe that incorporeal things must originate from material things. That is a pretty big stretch from "I don't believe in god".

Where do incorporeal things originate from then if not material things?

I don't know. And I accept that there are things I don't know. That does not change the definition of "atheist".

If you are an atheist, you can't believe it comes from your creator, right?

I do not believe there is a creator. But that is all it means. It does not mean I do not believe in incorporeal things. It does not mean I believe everything comes from material things. Some atheists do and some don't.

I never said you don't believe in incorporeal things. I'm pretty sure every one does. The question is where do they originate from. Materialists (who do not believe in God or spirit) believe they originate from the corporeal. Religious people believe they originate from the incorporeal. You apparently are in no man's land.

I am where I am. I do not waste time trying to answer questions of origin when there is no hope of an actual answer.

 

[ding]

Where do incorporeal things originate from then if not material things?

I don't know. And I accept that there are things I don't know. That does not change the definition of "atheist".

If you are an atheist, you can't believe it comes from your creator, right?

I do not believe there is a creator. But that is all it means. It does not mean I do not believe in incorporeal things. It does not mean I believe everything comes from material things. Some atheists do and some don't.

I never said you don't believe in incorporeal things. I'm pretty sure every one does. The question is where do they originate from. Materialists (who do not believe in God or spirit) believe they originate from the corporeal. Religious people believe they originate from the incorporeal. You apparently are in no man's land.

I am where I am. I do not waste time trying to answer questions of origin when there is no hope of an actual answer.

Neither you or Ed could bring yourself to say that love is nothing more than electrochemical processes firing in your brain.

There's a reason for that.

 

[WinterBorn]

Do you believe a dog is capable of love?

Yes. My turn.

Do you believe that emotions like love are anything other than electrochemical reactions in the brain?

Which came first, the material dog or the dog's love?
Can you answer that question honestly? I suspect you can't.

I wouldn't know. I suspect it develops or grows. My turn.

Do you believe that emotions like love are anything other than electrochemical reactions in the brain?

I can totally understand why you are avoiding this question. I like to challenge people to confront their incongruities.

LMAO!!! Oh that is hilarious!

You have spent pages and pages trying to insist that my beliefs fit your definitions. They don't. But, rather than stick with standard, accepted definitions, you want to expand them and expect everyone's beliefs to still fit that one box.

The incongruities lie with you.

I'm glad you were able to laugh. It seems like you are getting some hard feelings. That isn't my intention. My intention is exactly what I said it was. To make you think. You are totally struggling with your atheism.

So where does love originate from?

I have laughed numerous times during this thread.

I am certainly not struggling with being an atheist. I do not believe in god. No struggle there at all.

I don't know where love originates. I accept that I will likely never know where it originates. That changes nothing in my experiencing of it or in the belief that it can by incorporeal.

 

[ding]

Funny how atheists recoil from the logical conclusions of their own belief such that they cannot admit that they believe the love they feel for their children is nothing more than an electrochemical response firing in their brain as a result of evolutionary processes.

It's almost like they recoil from their own beliefs.

See, this sort of nonsense is ridiculous. You take a simple term like "atheist", which means someone who doesn't believe in god, and try to make it fit what YOU want atheists to be.

No. It is exactly what they say they are. Just matter. That there is nothing beyond matter. That everything happened on accident. That there is no purpose to any of this.

I disagree with all of it by the way.

From Merriam Webster dictionary:
"atheist
noun

athe·ist | \ˈā-thē-ist

\
Definition of atheist
: a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates atheism"


That is the definition of "atheist". No where in that definition does it claim that all atheists believe everything originates from the material world.

If you wish to create your own definition, feel free to do so. I don't need a new definition.

I get all that. Really I do. What I am discussing are a few of the practical consequences of atheism. I don't think you can find that in a definition.

 

[WinterBorn]

I don't know. And I accept that there are things I don't know. That does not change the definition of "atheist".

If you are an atheist, you can't believe it comes from your creator, right?

I do not believe there is a creator. But that is all it means. It does not mean I do not believe in incorporeal things. It does not mean I believe everything comes from material things. Some atheists do and some don't.

I never said you don't believe in incorporeal things. I'm pretty sure every one does. The question is where do they originate from. Materialists (who do not believe in God or spirit) believe they originate from the corporeal. Religious people believe they originate from the incorporeal. You apparently are in no man's land.

I am where I am. I do not waste time trying to answer questions of origin when there is no hope of an actual answer.

Neither you or Ed could bring yourself to say that love is nothing more than electrochemical processes firing in your brain.

There's a reason for that.

I can't speak for Ed, only myself. The reason I didn't say it was "...nothing more than electrochemical processes firing in your brain" is that I do not believe that. I have told you that numerous times. You seem to have trouble accepting the truth when I tell you.

 

[ding]

Yes. My turn.

Do you believe that emotions like love are anything other than electrochemical reactions in the brain?

Which came first, the material dog or the dog's love?
Can you answer that question honestly? I suspect you can't.

I wouldn't know. I suspect it develops or grows. My turn.

Do you believe that emotions like love are anything other than electrochemical reactions in the brain?

I can totally understand why you are avoiding this question. I like to challenge people to confront their incongruities.

LMAO!!! Oh that is hilarious!

You have spent pages and pages trying to insist that my beliefs fit your definitions. They don't. But, rather than stick with standard, accepted definitions, you want to expand them and expect everyone's beliefs to still fit that one box.

The incongruities lie with you.

I'm glad you were able to laugh. It seems like you are getting some hard feelings. That isn't my intention. My intention is exactly what I said it was. To make you think. You are totally struggling with your atheism.

So where does love originate from?

I have laughed numerous times during this thread.

I am certainly not struggling with being an atheist. I do not believe in god. No struggle there at all.

I don't know where love originates. I accept that I will likely never know where it originates. That changes nothing in my experiencing of it or in the belief that it can by incorporeal.

Only because you do not fully accept your atheism. If you did you would have no reservation admitting that love is an electrochemical process that is the result of evolution.

 

[WinterBorn]

Funny how atheists recoil from the logical conclusions of their own belief such that they cannot admit that they believe the love they feel for their children is nothing more than an electrochemical response firing in their brain as a result of evolutionary processes.

It's almost like they recoil from their own beliefs.

See, this sort of nonsense is ridiculous. You take a simple term like "atheist", which means someone who doesn't believe in god, and try to make it fit what YOU want atheists to be.

No. It is exactly what they say they are. Just matter. That there is nothing beyond matter. That everything happened on accident. That there is no purpose to any of this.

I disagree with all of it by the way.

From Merriam Webster dictionary:
"atheist
noun

athe·ist | \ˈā-thē-ist

\
Definition of atheist
: a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates atheism"


That is the definition of "atheist". No where in that definition does it claim that all atheists believe everything originates from the material world.

If you wish to create your own definition, feel free to do so. I don't need a new definition.

I get all that. Really I do. What I am discussing are a few of the practical consequences of atheism. I don't think you can find that in a definition.

You say you get it, and yet you keep trying to tell me what an atheist is, and your definition goes well beyond the actual, accepted one.

The consequences of atheism? You mean, like not believing in god? Anything beyond that is your own supposition, which may or may not fit my beliefs.

 

[ding]

If you are an atheist, you can't believe it comes from your creator, right?

I do not believe there is a creator. But that is all it means. It does not mean I do not believe in incorporeal things. It does not mean I believe everything comes from material things. Some atheists do and some don't.

I never said you don't believe in incorporeal things. I'm pretty sure every one does. The question is where do they originate from. Materialists (who do not believe in God or spirit) believe they originate from the corporeal. Religious people believe they originate from the incorporeal. You apparently are in no man's land.

I am where I am. I do not waste time trying to answer questions of origin when there is no hope of an actual answer.

Neither you or Ed could bring yourself to say that love is nothing more than electrochemical processes firing in your brain.

There's a reason for that.

I can't speak for Ed, only myself. The reason I didn't say it was "...nothing more than electrochemical processes firing in your brain" is that I do not believe that. I have told you that numerous times. You seem to have trouble accepting the truth when I tell you.

Why wouldn't you believe that?

 

[edthecynic]

Proof of something is independent of your belief. If I offer you proof of something and you reject it, that doesn't mean it wasn't true or that you weren't offered proof. Right?

Wrong.
Real proof is something that can be repeated by everyone.

 

[WinterBorn]

Which came first, the material dog or the dog's love?
Can you answer that question honestly? I suspect you can't.

I wouldn't know. I suspect it develops or grows. My turn.

Do you believe that emotions like love are anything other than electrochemical reactions in the brain?

I can totally understand why you are avoiding this question. I like to challenge people to confront their incongruities.

LMAO!!! Oh that is hilarious!

You have spent pages and pages trying to insist that my beliefs fit your definitions. They don't. But, rather than stick with standard, accepted definitions, you want to expand them and expect everyone's beliefs to still fit that one box.

The incongruities lie with you.

I'm glad you were able to laugh. It seems like you are getting some hard feelings. That isn't my intention. My intention is exactly what I said it was. To make you think. You are totally struggling with your atheism.

So where does love originate from?

I have laughed numerous times during this thread.

I am certainly not struggling with being an atheist. I do not believe in god. No struggle there at all.

I don't know where love originates. I accept that I will likely never know where it originates. That changes nothing in my experiencing of it or in the belief that it can by incorporeal.

Only because you do not fully accept your atheism. If you did you would have no reservation admitting that love is an electrochemical process that is the result of evolution.

Utter horseshit.

I accept that I do not believe in god. What I do not accept is your insistence that my not believing in god also means I do not believe in the incorporeal. YOu are attempting to define my beliefs by expanding the meaning of athiest.

 

[ding]

Funny how atheists recoil from the logical conclusions of their own belief such that they cannot admit that they believe the love they feel for their children is nothing more than an electrochemical response firing in their brain as a result of evolutionary processes.

It's almost like they recoil from their own beliefs.

See, this sort of nonsense is ridiculous. You take a simple term like "atheist", which means someone who doesn't believe in god, and try to make it fit what YOU want atheists to be.

No. It is exactly what they say they are. Just matter. That there is nothing beyond matter. That everything happened on accident. That there is no purpose to any of this.

I disagree with all of it by the way.

From Merriam Webster dictionary:
"atheist
noun

athe·ist | \ˈā-thē-ist

\
Definition of atheist
: a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates atheism"


That is the definition of "atheist". No where in that definition does it claim that all atheists believe everything originates from the material world.

If you wish to create your own definition, feel free to do so. I don't need a new definition.

I get all that. Really I do. What I am discussing are a few of the practical consequences of atheism. I don't think you can find that in a definition.

You say you get it, and yet you keep trying to tell me what an atheist is, and your definition goes well beyond the actual, accepted one.

The consequences of atheism? You mean, like not believing in god? Anything beyond that is your own supposition, which may or may not fit my beliefs.

No. Like not believing in the spiritual. Spirit is the opposite of material. Atheists are materialists.

 

[WinterBorn]

I do not believe there is a creator. But that is all it means. It does not mean I do not believe in incorporeal things. It does not mean I believe everything comes from material things. Some atheists do and some don't.

I never said you don't believe in incorporeal things. I'm pretty sure every one does. The question is where do they originate from. Materialists (who do not believe in God or spirit) believe they originate from the corporeal. Religious people believe they originate from the incorporeal. You apparently are in no man's land.

I am where I am. I do not waste time trying to answer questions of origin when there is no hope of an actual answer.

Neither you or Ed could bring yourself to say that love is nothing more than electrochemical processes firing in your brain.

There's a reason for that.

I can't speak for Ed, only myself. The reason I didn't say it was "...nothing more than electrochemical processes firing in your brain" is that I do not believe that. I have told you that numerous times. You seem to have trouble accepting the truth when I tell you.

Why wouldn't you believe that?

Why would I? I have stated that I believe in the incorporeal. I have stated that I belief Love does not come from electro-chemical reactions in the brain. You seem to have trouble accepting what I say.

Why is that?

 

[ding]

I wouldn't know. I suspect it develops or grows. My turn.

Do you believe that emotions like love are anything other than electrochemical reactions in the brain?

I can totally understand why you are avoiding this question. I like to challenge people to confront their incongruities.

LMAO!!! Oh that is hilarious!

You have spent pages and pages trying to insist that my beliefs fit your definitions. They don't. But, rather than stick with standard, accepted definitions, you want to expand them and expect everyone's beliefs to still fit that one box.

The incongruities lie with you.

I'm glad you were able to laugh. It seems like you are getting some hard feelings. That isn't my intention. My intention is exactly what I said it was. To make you think. You are totally struggling with your atheism.

So where does love originate from?

I have laughed numerous times during this thread.

I am certainly not struggling with being an atheist. I do not believe in god. No struggle there at all.

I don't know where love originates. I accept that I will likely never know where it originates. That changes nothing in my experiencing of it or in the belief that it can by incorporeal.

Only because you do not fully accept your atheism. If you did you would have no reservation admitting that love is an electrochemical process that is the result of evolution.

Utter horseshit.

I accept that I do not believe in god. What I do not accept is your insistence that my not believing in god also means I do not believe in the incorporeal. YOu are attempting to define my beliefs by expanding the meaning of athiest.

You recoil at believing your love for others is nothing more than an evolutionary response. You are literally denying your atheism.

 

[WinterBorn]

See, this sort of nonsense is ridiculous. You take a simple term like "atheist", which means someone who doesn't believe in god, and try to make it fit what YOU want atheists to be.

No. It is exactly what they say they are. Just matter. That there is nothing beyond matter. That everything happened on accident. That there is no purpose to any of this.

I disagree with all of it by the way.

From Merriam Webster dictionary:
"atheist
noun

athe·ist | \ˈā-thē-ist

\
Definition of atheist
: a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates atheism"


That is the definition of "atheist". No where in that definition does it claim that all atheists believe everything originates from the material world.

If you wish to create your own definition, feel free to do so. I don't need a new definition.

I get all that. Really I do. What I am discussing are a few of the practical consequences of atheism. I don't think you can find that in a definition.

You say you get it, and yet you keep trying to tell me what an atheist is, and your definition goes well beyond the actual, accepted one.

The consequences of atheism? You mean, like not believing in god? Anything beyond that is your own supposition, which may or may not fit my beliefs.

No. Like not believing in the spiritual. Spirit is the opposite of material. Atheists are materialists.

I do not believe in God. That is the extent of the definition of being an atheist. That does not include all things incorporeal or even spiritual. That will vary from person to person. Like the belief in ghosts. Some Christians believe in ghosts and some do not.

 

[ding]

I never said you don't believe in incorporeal things. I'm pretty sure every one does. The question is where do they originate from. Materialists (who do not believe in God or spirit) believe they originate from the corporeal. Religious people believe they originate from the incorporeal. You apparently are in no man's land.

I am where I am. I do not waste time trying to answer questions of origin when there is no hope of an actual answer.

Neither you or Ed could bring yourself to say that love is nothing more than electrochemical processes firing in your brain.

There's a reason for that.

I can't speak for Ed, only myself. The reason I didn't say it was "...nothing more than electrochemical processes firing in your brain" is that I do not believe that. I have told you that numerous times. You seem to have trouble accepting the truth when I tell you.

Why wouldn't you believe that?

Why would I? I have stated that I believe in the incorporeal. I have stated that I belief Love does not come from electro-chemical reactions in the brain. You seem to have trouble accepting what I say.

Why is that?

Because it is incongruent with atheism. Atheists do not ascribe to any higher power than men.

Where did this incorporeal source come from if not something that is incorporeal itself?

 

[WinterBorn]

LMAO!!! Oh that is hilarious!

You have spent pages and pages trying to insist that my beliefs fit your definitions. They don't. But, rather than stick with standard, accepted definitions, you want to expand them and expect everyone's beliefs to still fit that one box.

The incongruities lie with you.

I'm glad you were able to laugh. It seems like you are getting some hard feelings. That isn't my intention. My intention is exactly what I said it was. To make you think. You are totally struggling with your atheism.

So where does love originate from?

I have laughed numerous times during this thread.

I am certainly not struggling with being an atheist. I do not believe in god. No struggle there at all.

I don't know where love originates. I accept that I will likely never know where it originates. That changes nothing in my experiencing of it or in the belief that it can by incorporeal.

Only because you do not fully accept your atheism. If you did you would have no reservation admitting that love is an electrochemical process that is the result of evolution.

Utter horseshit.

I accept that I do not believe in god. What I do not accept is your insistence that my not believing in god also means I do not believe in the incorporeal. YOu are attempting to define my beliefs by expanding the meaning of athiest.

You recoil at believing your love for others is nothing more than an evolutionary response. You are literally denying your atheism.

Absolutely not. I am not recoiling from not believing god.

Why do you not accept what I say? Why do you insist on telling me what I feel or believe? And if you do not accept my answers, why do you continue to ask questions?

 

[WinterBorn]

I am where I am. I do not waste time trying to answer questions of origin when there is no hope of an actual answer.

Neither you or Ed could bring yourself to say that love is nothing more than electrochemical processes firing in your brain.

There's a reason for that.

I can't speak for Ed, only myself. The reason I didn't say it was "...nothing more than electrochemical processes firing in your brain" is that I do not believe that. I have told you that numerous times. You seem to have trouble accepting the truth when I tell you.

Why wouldn't you believe that?

Why would I? I have stated that I believe in the incorporeal. I have stated that I belief Love does not come from electro-chemical reactions in the brain. You seem to have trouble accepting what I say.

Why is that?

Because it is incongruent with atheism. Atheists do not ascribe to any higher power than men.

Where did this incorporeal source come from if not something that is incorporeal itself?

Once again, the origin of things does not define my belief in them. Apparently it does for you.

 

[ding]

No. It is exactly what they say they are. Just matter. That there is nothing beyond matter. That everything happened on accident. That there is no purpose to any of this.

I disagree with all of it by the way.

From Merriam Webster dictionary:
"atheist
noun

athe·ist | \ˈā-thē-ist

\
Definition of atheist
: a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates atheism"


That is the definition of "atheist". No where in that definition does it claim that all atheists believe everything originates from the material world.

If you wish to create your own definition, feel free to do so. I don't need a new definition.

I get all that. Really I do. What I am discussing are a few of the practical consequences of atheism. I don't think you can find that in a definition.

You say you get it, and yet you keep trying to tell me what an atheist is, and your definition goes well beyond the actual, accepted one.

The consequences of atheism? You mean, like not believing in god? Anything beyond that is your own supposition, which may or may not fit my beliefs.

No. Like not believing in the spiritual. Spirit is the opposite of material. Atheists are materialists.

I do not believe in God. That is the extent of the definition of being an atheist. That does not include all things incorporeal or even spiritual. That will vary from person to person. Like the belief in ghosts. Some Christians believe in ghosts and some do not.

So you believe that something that is incorporeal exists that was not created by the corporeal? Sounds a lot like God to me.

 

[ding]

Neither you or Ed could bring yourself to say that love is nothing more than electrochemical processes firing in your brain.

There's a reason for that.

I can't speak for Ed, only myself. The reason I didn't say it was "...nothing more than electrochemical processes firing in your brain" is that I do not believe that. I have told you that numerous times. You seem to have trouble accepting the truth when I tell you.

Why wouldn't you believe that?

Why would I? I have stated that I believe in the incorporeal. I have stated that I belief Love does not come from electro-chemical reactions in the brain. You seem to have trouble accepting what I say.

Why is that?

Because it is incongruent with atheism. Atheists do not ascribe to any higher power than men.

Where did this incorporeal source come from if not something that is incorporeal itself?

Once again, the origin of things does not define my belief in them. Apparently it does for you.

Only in that your belief that the incorporeal were created by something which is incorporeal does not agree with atheism.

It's like you want God-Lite or something. Great tasting and none of the nasty expectations of accountability.

 

[ding]

And that changes the reality that you believe you are more than just atoms how?

This isn't about the existence of God. This is about your illogical belief that you aren't a materialist.

If I believe there are incorporeal things, then the supposition that I am a materialist is inaccurate.

Not if you are an atheist.

I'm not arguing that you don't believe in the existence of incorporeal things. I fully agree that you do believe they exist. But if you are an atheist you must believe incorporeal things originate only from material things. That they don't originated because you are a spiritual being. The very best you can believe is that your spiritual responses are nothing more than evolutionary programing that only exist for evolutionary purposes. That the love or anger or sadness you feel are only because of an electrochemical process firing inside your brain.

I totally get why you are repulsed by this thought but it is the reality of being an atheist. You can't eat your cake and have it too.

"But if you are an atheist you must believe incorporeal things originate only from material things"??

I must? According to whom? Why do you think you get to define who I am? You have done it repeatedly in this thread. Perhaps my beliefs are seen as a threat to yours?

I do not believe that incorporeal things must originate from material things. That is a pretty big stretch from "I don't believe in god".

Do you believe that emotions like love are anything other than electrochemical reactions in the brain?

Yes, I believe that some emotions and feelings transcend electro-chemical reactions and material things.

Just so you know. I do too. I believe we are all spiritual beings who possess a spirit.