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

[ding]

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

What is it that you believe is illogical about my religion?

 

[ding]

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.

Warning!! This site is designed for:

• atheists, agnostic, free thinkers, secular humanists, rationalists, materialists, unbelievers, skeptics, all those who live without gods or religion, anti-clericals, apostates, those who have been excommunicated or anathematized, infidels, renegades, heretics, the damned, the unfrocked, the impious, women who have been stoned, and all others who are potential fuel for burning at the stake...

Atheism - How to live without God, religion and beliefs: texts, humor, quotes and quotations

 

[ding]

Materialism is a movement of thought about the nature of being which considers that there is no other substance but matter and that though and self-consciousness are secondary products of matter or illusions. Materialism rejects the existence of soul, of the next world and of God, being opposed to spiritualism and idealism.

Definition of Materialism and atomism in the Ancient Greek philosophy : Leucippus, Democritus, Plato, Epicurus, Lucretius, stoicism

 

[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.

Warning!! This site is designed for:

• atheists, agnostic, free thinkers, secular humanists, rationalists, materialists, unbelievers, skeptics, all those who live without gods or religion, anti-clericals, apostates, those who have been excommunicated or anathematized, infidels, renegades, heretics, the damned, the unfrocked, the impious, women who have been stoned, and all others who are potential fuel for burning at the stake...

Atheism - How to live without God, religion and beliefs: texts, humor, quotes and quotations

You get easily confused by category distinctions. The reason they listed materialists, separately from atheists, is that they are different things.

 

[dblack]

Materialism is a movement of thought about the nature of being which considers that there is no other substance but matter and that though and self-consciousness are secondary products of matter or illusions. Materialism rejects the existence of soul, of the next world and of God, being opposed to spiritualism and idealism.

Definition of Materialism and atomism in the Ancient Greek philosophy : Leucippus, Democritus, Plato, Epicurus, Lucretius, stoicism

That's nice. But the thread is about atheists, not materialists. Your strawman is dissolving in the rain.

 

[ding]

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.

Warning!! This site is designed for:

• atheists, agnostic, free thinkers, secular humanists, rationalists, materialists, unbelievers, skeptics, all those who live without gods or religion, anti-clericals, apostates, those who have been excommunicated or anathematized, infidels, renegades, heretics, the damned, the unfrocked, the impious, women who have been stoned, and all others who are potential fuel for burning at the stake...

Atheism - How to live without God, religion and beliefs: texts, humor, quotes and quotations

You get easily confused by category distinctions. The reason they listed materialists, separately from atheists is that they are different things.

On an atheist website?

 

[ding]

Materialism is a movement of thought about the nature of being which considers that there is no other substance but matter and that though and self-consciousness are secondary products of matter or illusions. Materialism rejects the existence of soul, of the next world and of God, being opposed to spiritualism and idealism.

Definition of Materialism and atomism in the Ancient Greek philosophy : Leucippus, Democritus, Plato, Epicurus, Lucretius, stoicism

That's nice. But the thread is about atheists, not materialists. Your strawman is dissolving in the rain.

One and the same.

 

[dblack]

Materialism is a movement of thought about the nature of being which considers that there is no other substance but matter and that though and self-consciousness are secondary products of matter or illusions. Materialism rejects the existence of soul, of the next world and of God, being opposed to spiritualism and idealism.

Definition of Materialism and atomism in the Ancient Greek philosophy : Leucippus, Democritus, Plato, Epicurus, Lucretius, stoicism

That's nice. But the thread is about atheists, not materialists. Your strawman is dissolving in the rain.

One in the same.

Nope.

 

[ding]

Materialism is a movement of thought about the nature of being which considers that there is no other substance but matter and that though and self-consciousness are secondary products of matter or illusions. Materialism rejects the existence of soul, of the next world and of God, being opposed to spiritualism and idealism.

Definition of Materialism and atomism in the Ancient Greek philosophy : Leucippus, Democritus, Plato, Epicurus, Lucretius, stoicism

That's nice. But the thread is about atheists, not materialists. Your strawman is dissolving in the rain.

One in the same.

Nope.

I don't blame you. I would distance myself from them too. Can you tell me which one of these you disagree with though?

Main differences between materialism and spiritualism

 

[dblack]

Can you tell me which one of these you disagree with though?

No. It's irrelevant.

 

[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.

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

Again, not as YOU define it. As I said, I am an Existentialist, existence begets essence. You are an ass backwards Metaphysicist, essence begets existence. Existentialism can be seen in the real world, music is my favorite example, Metaphysics has no real world examples.

 

[ding]

Can you tell me which one of these you disagree with though?

No. It's irrelevant.

So you agreed with it all.

 

[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.

Again, not as YOU define it. As I said, I am an Existentialist, existence begets essence. You are an ass backwards Metaphysicist, essence begets existence. Existentialism can be seen in the real world, music is my favorite example, Metaphysics has no real world examples.

No. I am just a really bad catholic.

285 Since the beginning the Christian faith has been challenged by responses to the question of origins that differ from its own. Ancient religions and cultures produced many myths concerning origins. Some philosophers have said that everything is God, that the world is God, or that the development of the world is the development of God (Pantheism). Others have said that the world is a necessary emanation arising from God and returning to him. Still others have affirmed the existence of two eternal principles, Good and Evil, Light and Darkness, locked, in permanent conflict (Dualism, Manichaeism). According to some of these conceptions, the world (at least the physical world) is evil, the product of a fall, and is thus to be rejected or left behind (Gnosticism). Some admit that the world was made by God, but as by a watch-maker who, once he has made a watch, abandons it to itself (Deism). Finally, others reject any transcendent origin for the world, but see it as merely the interplay of matter that has always existed (Materialism). All these attempts bear witness to the permanence and universality of the question of origins. This inquiry is distinctively human.

286 Human intelligence is surely already capable of finding a response to the question of origins. The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason,122even if this knowledge is often obscured and disfigured by error. This is why faith comes to confirm and enlighten reason in the correct understanding of this truth: "By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear."123

Catechism of the Catholic Church - The Creator

 

[dblack]

Can you tell me which one of these you disagree with though?

No. It's irrelevant.

So you agreed with it all.

Fuck you. I didn't say that. I said it's irrelevant. I'm not going to let you weasel out of your hypocrisy and dishonesty.

 

[ding]

Can you tell me which one of these you disagree with though?

No. It's irrelevant.

So you agreed with it all.

Fuck you. I didn't say that. I said it's irrelevant. I'm not going to let you weasel out of your hypocrisy and dishonesty.

I know you didn't say it. I did. If you disagreed with any of it, you would have said it just to prove me wrong.

 

[dblack]

I know you didn't say it. I did. If you disagreed with any of it, you would have said it just to prove me wrong.

Nope. I didn't even read it. Your attempt to steer away from the flaws of your OP, and distract the argument with irrelevant nonsense, is tiresome. You're merely trolling at this point.

 

[ding]

I know you didn't say it. I did. If you disagreed with any of it, you would have said it just to prove me wrong.

Nope. I didn't even read it. Your attempt to steer away from the flaws of your OP, and distract the argument with irrelevant nonsense, is tiresome. You're merely trolling at this point.

That wasn't that surprising to hear you say you didn't read it.

Yes, we are far afield of the OP.

See when you say something that actually makes sense I will agree with you.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

If you say that is what you believe, I will take your word for it.

Personally, there not being a god does not preclude incorporeal things existing. And if we do not know the origins of those incorporeal things, I will not suppose that their origins are corporeal.

 

[ding]

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.

If you say that is what you believe, I will take your word for it.

Personally, there not being a god does not preclude incorporeal things existing. And if we do not know the origins of those incorporeal things, I will not suppose that their origins are corporeal.

I have no problem with your beliefs. I just don't believe it is consistent with atheism.

How about we agree to disagree?

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

If you say that is what you believe, I will take your word for it.

Personally, there not being a god does not preclude incorporeal things existing. And if we do not know the origins of those incorporeal things, I will not suppose that their origins are corporeal.

I have no problem with your beliefs. I just don't believe it is consistent with atheism.

How about we agree to disagree?

So we should agree to disagree about MY beliefs? lol How generous of you.

I don't believe in any god. By definition, that makes me an atheist. The rest is just your song & dance.