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

[harmonica]

I don't don't believe in god
it's impossible to not not believe in god--there is no god

Good for you. That’s the spirit.

you are like the people hundreds of years ago that believed in witches/ghosts
and comets/etc were supernatural

No. The supernatural is only in Genesis. The Bible tells us to not believe in witches, ghosts and what??? comets haha. It includes fortune tellers, mediums and the like who want your money.

you people believe in a fairy tale--plain and simple

How can it be a fairy tale when we discovered the Bible and Dead Sea Scrolls and it is classified as a non-fiction book. We know Greek gods were fairy tales? Do you even know how we know haha?

you believe in a sky fairy

 

[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".

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.

Some? Why not all?

Some are, in fact, electro-chemical reactions in the brain. Like fear.

How about love?

I have answered that already.

 

[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.

Your circular logic is ridiculous.

You say, since I am an atheist I cannot believe in the incorporeal. In fact, you insist on it. And since you insist, despite my words to the contrary, that I cannot be an atheist and believe in the incorporeal, I have to be a materialist. It all depends on you redefining what it means to be an atheist. For your purposes, you have to insist that "atheist" means more than someone who does not believe in god.

 

[edthecynic]

I agree that the spiritual soul of the painter is in the painting. I don't know how you could believe that though. You are a materialist who does not believe he has a soul.

And that is why I never let you define anything. I have made it very clear that the works and deeds of the material person create their spiritual soul that lives on after the material person dematerializes. IOW, the material creates the spiritual, not the spiritual creates the material. Or to put it another way, from our interactions on this board my soul lives in your physical existence no matter how small a part it might be.

I would define myself as an existentialist, (physical/material) existence begets essence (soul/spirit) and I would define you as a metaphysicist, essence begets existence.

 

[edthecynic]

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.

I knew you could not answer honestly. Could the dog's love "grow" if the material dog did not already exist?

And I have answered your question repeatedly, you just don't like how the questions I answer you with expose the flaw in your "logic" that the nonmaterial can exist before the material.

I answered that question as honestly as I could. I believe that love grows and that it is more than an electrochemical reaction in the brain. I think it s a lot like consciousness in that regard.

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

How exactly is consciousness in any way beyond a brain function? Can you give an example of anything without a brain that is conscious?

 

[deanrd]

So I asked the question again, can you name a single thing you completely believe in without a shred of evidence outside the occult?

 

[edthecynic]

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.

Don't include me there, I made it clear that without the material existence of the person FIRST, no spiritual existence is possible, which answered your question and then some.

 

[anotherlife]

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.

Interestingly, the Bible actually does say, that the word of God is meaningless to the doomed.

And it is just as meaningless to the "saved."

Or it is not. Hehehe

 

[ding]

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.

Some? Why not all?

Some are, in fact, electro-chemical reactions in the brain. Like fear.

How about love?

I have answered that already.

Yes, you did. Thank you very much.

 

[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.

Your circular logic is ridiculous.

You say, since I am an atheist I cannot believe in the incorporeal. In fact, you insist on it. And since you insist, despite my words to the contrary, that I cannot be an atheist and believe in the incorporeal, I have to be a materialist. It all depends on you redefining what it means to be an atheist. For your purposes, you have to insist that "atheist" means more than someone who does not believe in god.

Not exactly. I said atheists cannot believe that the incorporeal cannot have incorporeal origins because they don't believe in God. In other words, atheists believe that the incorporeal can have corporeal origins.

I'm not trying to redefine atheism. I am trying to show the logical consequence to not believing in God. One of which is that things like love are explained through evolutionary processes. In other words things like love are just electrochemical responses in the brain and nothing more. It only exists to further the species.

 

[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.

I knew you could not answer honestly. Could the dog's love "grow" if the material dog did not already exist?

And I have answered your question repeatedly, you just don't like how the questions I answer you with expose the flaw in your "logic" that the nonmaterial can exist before the material.

I answered that question as honestly as I could. I believe that love grows and that it is more than an electrochemical reaction in the brain. I think it s a lot like consciousness in that regard.

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

How exactly is consciousness in any way beyond a brain function? Can you give an example of anything without a brain that is conscious?

I'll let George Wal, an atheist, answer that question...

“In my life as scientist I have come upon two major problems which, though rooted in science, though they would occur in this form only to a scientist, project beyond science, and are I think ultimately insoluble as science. That is hardly to be wondered at, since one involves consciousness and the other, cosmology.

The consciousness problem was hardly avoidable by one who has spent most of his life studying mechanisms of vision. We have learned a lot, we hope to learn much more; but none of it touches or even points, however tentatively, in the direction of what it means to see. Our observations in human eyes and nervous systems and in those of frogs are basically much alike. I know that I see; but does a frog see? It reacts to light; so do cameras, garage doors, any number of photoelectric devices. But does it see? Is it aware that it is reacting? There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness. I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception. Consciousness seems to me to be wholly impervious to science.

The second problem involves the special properties of our universe. Life seems increasingly to be part of the order of nature. We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds life?

It has occurred to me lately - I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities - that both questions might be brought into some degree of congruence. This is with the assumption that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.”

George Wald, 1984, “Life and Mind in the Universe”, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum Biology Symposium 11, 1984: 1-15.

 

[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.

Don't include me there, I made it clear that without the material existence of the person FIRST, no spiritual existence is possible, which answered your question and then some.

Yes, you totally agreed that atheists like yourself believe in materialism.

 

[dblack]

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

They might. You keep making all these general claims about what atheists believe and don't believe and it's just not the case. The only thing you can say for sure about an atheist follows from the definition: they don't believe in gods. That's it. The rest is just your silly PR campaign.

 

[dblack]

Where is the flaw in the logic that if one does not believe that God created the universe than everything in it was created by material things?

First of all, it assumes that the universe was "created". Second, it assumes God is the only non-material thing. Two errors in one sentence. At least you're efficient.

There is no doubt the universe was created.

There's no proof either.

How do you think it got here?

I don't know. Neither do you.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations, inflation theory and the Second Law of Thermodynamics say otherwise.

No, they don't.

 

[dblack]

Funny how atheists recoil from the logical conclusions of ...

You wouldn't know logic if it was used to destroy your argument and show that you are a fool. Which has happened repeatedly throughout this thread.

 

[dblack]

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.

Yep. Entire thread is a strawman.

 

[ding]

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

They might. You keep making all these general claims about what atheists believe and don't believe and it's just not the case. The only thing you can say for sure about an atheist follows from the definition. They don't believe in gods. That's it. The rest is just your silly PR campaign.

From an atheist website... Main differences between materialism and spiritualism

 

[ding]

Where is the flaw in the logic that if one does not believe that God created the universe than everything in it was created by material things?

First of all, it assumes that the universe was "created". Second, it assumes God is the only non-material thing. Two errors in one sentence. At least you're efficient.

There is no doubt the universe was created.

There's no proof either.

How do you think it got here?

I don't know. Neither do you.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations, inflation theory and the Second Law of Thermodynamics say otherwise.

No, they don't.

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

So my question is... Is it possible for atheism to ever be anything more than critical theory?

That would still make it more logical than your religion

 

[dblack]

Atheists are materialists.

This isn't true, no matter how many times you repeat it. Some are, some aren't. Your inability to comprehend that proves you are either a moron, or deliberately spread lies. I'm voting for the latter.