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

[ding]

I haven’t attacked you.

And you do criticize my beliefs every time you call them fairy tales.

This thread implies that atheism is inferior to theism- and that is an attack on atheists- including myself.

Again- I don't have any need to prove anything. I have no need to prove that your god or goddess doesn't exist- frankly I am quite content with my position that i don't believe in any gods.

I don't start threads to validate my lack of belief- I respond to threads like yours- where you attempt to subordinate my position to yours.

I don't have a need to criticize your beliefs- other than in the context where I am responding to attacks by such as yourself who are trying to subordinate atheism to theism.

Remember again- you are the one who starts threads attacking atheism- I am not starting threads attacking religion.

No. This thread does not imply that. This thread implies you can’t make an affirmative case for atheism. That the only case that can be made for atheism is attacking the beliefs of others who believe in God.

Are you really so blind as to not see that is indeed an attack on atheism.

Saying that I can only justify my lack in belief in any god implies I need to justify my lack of belief in any god.

Again- with the stamp collecting analogy- this thread implies that you cannot make an affirmative case for not collecting stamps. That the only case for not collecting stamps is attacking the desire of stamp collectors to collect stamps.

Atheists don't have to make a case for not believing in your fairy tales. It is as unnecessary as would be making a case for not collecting stamps.

Then prove me wrong and make your affirmative case for your beliefs.

Why would someone who doesn't collect stamps need to make an affirmative case for not collecting stamps?

Why do you believe that an atheist has any obligation to justify being an atheist?

No. Make your affirmative case for atheism.

Prove me wrong by making an affirmative case for atheism.

 

[ding]

Why do you believe that an atheist has any obligation to justify being an atheist?

I didn’t say they did. I said they can’t make an affirmative case for their belief because they can’t prove a negative. The only case they can make is an argument against having beliefs.

 

[LittleNipper]

No. I’m not. I am stating the truth. Atheists cannot prove a negative so the only way they can validate their beliefs in the negative is to criticize the beliefs of others. Is that offensive to you? Why?

See- this is where you 'true believers' so often mistake your religious faith for the 'truth'.

I don't have any need to prove anything. I have no need to prove that your god or goddess doesn't exist- frankly I am quite content with my position that i don't believe in any gods.

I don't start threads to validate my lack of belief- I respond to threads like yours- where you attempt to subordinate my position to yours.

I don't have a need to criticize your beliefs- other than in the context where I am responding to attacks by such as yourself who are trying to subordinate atheism to theism.

Remember again- you are the one who starts threads attacking atheism- I am not starting threads attacking religion.

I haven’t attacked you.

And you do criticize my beliefs every time you call them fairy tales.

This thread implies that atheism is inferior to theism- and that is an attack on atheists- including myself.

Again- I don't have any need to prove anything. I have no need to prove that your god or goddess doesn't exist- frankly I am quite content with my position that i don't believe in any gods.

I don't start threads to validate my lack of belief- I respond to threads like yours- where you attempt to subordinate my position to yours.

I don't have a need to criticize your beliefs- other than in the context where I am responding to attacks by such as yourself who are trying to subordinate atheism to theism.

Remember again- you are the one who starts threads attacking atheism- I am not starting threads attacking religion.

No. This thread does not imply that. This thread implies you can’t make an affirmative case for atheism. That the only case that can be made for atheism is attacking the beliefs of others who believe in God.

Are you really so blind as to not see that is indeed an attack on atheism.

Saying that I can only justify my lack in belief in any god implies I need to justify my lack of belief in any god.

Again- with the stamp collecting analogy- this thread implies that you cannot make an affirmative case for not collecting stamps. That the only case for not collecting stamps is attacking the desire of stamp collectors to collect stamps.

Atheists don't have to make a case for not believing in your fairy tales. It is as unnecessary as would be making a case for not collecting stamps.

As long as atheists wish to debate religion, they do indeed need to make their case for not believing in GOD. No one is forcing anyone to participate; however, in order to qualify such values or lack of them, one must at least be willing to explain why to the best of their ability and not simply take issue with believers. Debates are never one sided or they become irrelevant

 

[Syriusly]

See- this is where you 'true believers' so often mistake your religious faith for the 'truth'.

I don't have any need to prove anything. I have no need to prove that your god or goddess doesn't exist- frankly I am quite content with my position that i don't believe in any gods.

I don't start threads to validate my lack of belief- I respond to threads like yours- where you attempt to subordinate my position to yours.

I don't have a need to criticize your beliefs- other than in the context where I am responding to attacks by such as yourself who are trying to subordinate atheism to theism.

Remember again- you are the one who starts threads attacking atheism- I am not starting threads attacking religion.

I haven’t attacked you.

And you do criticize my beliefs every time you call them fairy tales.

This thread implies that atheism is inferior to theism- and that is an attack on atheists- including myself.

Again- I don't have any need to prove anything. I have no need to prove that your god or goddess doesn't exist- frankly I am quite content with my position that i don't believe in any gods.

I don't start threads to validate my lack of belief- I respond to threads like yours- where you attempt to subordinate my position to yours.

I don't have a need to criticize your beliefs- other than in the context where I am responding to attacks by such as yourself who are trying to subordinate atheism to theism.

Remember again- you are the one who starts threads attacking atheism- I am not starting threads attacking religion.

No. This thread does not imply that. This thread implies you can’t make an affirmative case for atheism. That the only case that can be made for atheism is attacking the beliefs of others who believe in God.

Are you really so blind as to not see that is indeed an attack on atheism.

Saying that I can only justify my lack in belief in any god implies I need to justify my lack of belief in any god.

Again- with the stamp collecting analogy- this thread implies that you cannot make an affirmative case for not collecting stamps. That the only case for not collecting stamps is attacking the desire of stamp collectors to collect stamps.

Atheists don't have to make a case for not believing in your fairy tales. It is as unnecessary as would be making a case for not collecting stamps.

As long as atheists wish to debate religion, they do indeed need to make their case for not believing in GOD. No one is forcing anyone to participate; however, in order to qualify such values or lack of them, one must at least be willing to explain why to the best of their ability and not simply take issue with believers. Debates are never one sided or they become irrelevant

I don't wish to debate your beliefs in fairy tales. Which is why I don't start threads telling you why your beliefs are wrong.

But I do respond to attacks on folk like myself, who do not share in your beliefs. When I am told I need to justify why I don't share your beliefs- only then do I express my personal feelings about your beliefs.

 

[Syriusly]

Not going to get distracted-

Do you really believe that people who don't have religion can't have moral values? Because that is what you said.

Prove that I have no concept of right or wrong since I don't believe in any fairy tales.

Prove your position.

This can be an interesting debate- and if you would prefer we can start a new thread devoted exclusively to that topic- "Can athiests have a concept of right or wrong- and related- do those who have faith in a religion have superior concepts of what is right or wrong?

I believe you don’t believe in absolute right and wrong. I believe your beliefs of right and wrong are morally relativistic.

I know you believe very strongly about right and wrong. Almost all humans do. It’s one of the reasons why I believe in God. Just because we don’t agree on what is right and wrong doesn’t mean God exists. It is because you feel so strongly about them that I know God exists.

So you are refuting your previous statement?

ven things like caring for others is about satisfying earthly pleasure. You do these things for the pleasure it gives you. You don’t do these things because It is the right thing to do. In fact, there can be no concept of right or wrong.

No. I stand by that. That is the logical consequence of materialism.

Great- then we are back to my previous challenge

Do you really believe that people who don't have religion can't have moral values? Because that is what you said.

Prove that I have no concept of right or wrong since I don't believe in any fairy tales.

Prove your position.

This can be an interesting debate- and if you would prefer we can start a new thread devoted exclusively to that topic- "Can athiests have a concept of right or wrong- and related- do those who have faith in a religion have superior concepts of what is right or wrong?

No. They can have moral values. They don’t believe moral values are absolute. So they can be anything a society decides.

Okay- so you have retracted your claim that atheists cannot have moral values.

But we are still left with your claim that I have no concept of right or wrong.

Prove that I have no concept of right or wrong since I don't believe in any fairy tales.

Prove your position.

 

[WinterBorn]

Once again, you demand that others accept your beliefs and limitations. I do not. I believe love is incorporeal. I also believe that spirit is not the same as love.

There are only two choices. Matter or spirit. Everything else will simply to one of these two common denominators.

No, I do not believe that. I have stated what I believe as far as Love. And that fits neither. Your repeated insistence does not change that.

Which makes perfect sense since you can’t explain it.

My not attempting to explain is not relevant. My beliefs are. And since we are discussing something that cannot be empirically explored, it is solely left to beliefs.

The fact that you can’t explain it and still believe it is a sign of faith.

The fact that you deny your materialism and believe that love is not spirit confirms your materialism. The odd thing is that you believe in a lifeforce but you are consistent in your inability to know what it is or how you know it. Apparently you take that on faith too.

But most telling is your firm belief that there is a universal code of common decency that you believe everyone knows and should follow.

I do not need faith to believe something I have experienced exists. The fact that I do not attempt to explain its properties or origins does not change that. You seem to think that, because I have experienced it, I should know all its properties and origins. Obviously a foolish supposition.

My belief that civil behavior among people should be expected has no relevancy to the topic.

 

[WinterBorn]

Which by the way is condemning respect for people of faith which is a form of subordination of religion.

If that is the case, are you not guilty of subordinating my beliefs?

Your belief in the negative?

How exactly have I disrespected them? Have I called you any names? Have I said you were stupid for not believing in God? All I have done is question you?

Have you not claimed my stated beliefs are a lie? You have said I am not an atheist. Despite my statements to the contrary, you have proclaimed me a materialist. And you have repeatedly called me confused.

Had Syriusly said those things of you, you would certainly have made the accusation of subordination.

 

[Syriusly]

This thread implies that atheism is inferior to theism- and that is an attack on atheists- including myself.

Again- I don't have any need to prove anything. I have no need to prove that your god or goddess doesn't exist- frankly I am quite content with my position that i don't believe in any gods.

I don't start threads to validate my lack of belief- I respond to threads like yours- where you attempt to subordinate my position to yours.

I don't have a need to criticize your beliefs- other than in the context where I am responding to attacks by such as yourself who are trying to subordinate atheism to theism.

Remember again- you are the one who starts threads attacking atheism- I am not starting threads attacking religion.

No. This thread does not imply that. This thread implies you can’t make an affirmative case for atheism. That the only case that can be made for atheism is attacking the beliefs of others who believe in God.

Are you really so blind as to not see that is indeed an attack on atheism.

Saying that I can only justify my lack in belief in any god implies I need to justify my lack of belief in any god.

Again- with the stamp collecting analogy- this thread implies that you cannot make an affirmative case for not collecting stamps. That the only case for not collecting stamps is attacking the desire of stamp collectors to collect stamps.

Atheists don't have to make a case for not believing in your fairy tales. It is as unnecessary as would be making a case for not collecting stamps.

Then prove me wrong and make your affirmative case for your beliefs.

Why would someone who doesn't collect stamps need to make an affirmative case for not collecting stamps?

Why do you believe that an atheist has any obligation to justify being an atheist?

No. Make your affirmative case for atheism.

Prove me wrong by making an affirmative case for atheism.

LOL yeah tell me again how you are not attacking me for not believing your fairy tales.

I look forward to your thread where you ask Jews to make an affirmative case for not believing in Jesus.

To prove you wrong by making an affirmative case for not believing that Jesus Christ is our saviour.

Because that is exactly what you are asking me to do.

I don't ask you to make an affirmative cases to prove your fairy tales are real. I don't care. I just don't believe in your fairy tales.

You are the one starting threads attempting to subordinate atheism to whatever it is that you believe in.

 

[WinterBorn]

Which by the way is condemning respect for people of faith which is a form of subordination of religion.

If that is the case, are you not guilty of subordinating my beliefs?

Your belief in the negative?

How exactly have I disrespected them? Have I called you any names? Have I said you were stupid for not believing in God? All I have done is question you?

All you have done is imply that atheism is subordinate to religion- that is what this thread is.

You are implying that my not believing in your fairy tales is inferior to your belief in your fairy tales.

That is what this thread is about.

As I point out over and over- I don't start threads proclaiming the superiority of atheism to faith- I don't feel a need to convince you of faith that you are wrong- or inferior.

You are one who starts these threads.

Not me.

No. I’m not. I am stating the truth. Atheists cannot prove a negative so the only way they can validate their beliefs in the negative is to criticize the beliefs of others. Is that offensive to you? Why?

Why would atheists need to validate their beliefs?

 

[Syriusly]

And by the way- I am really curious as to the 'absolute moral values' of Christianity.

Very, very curious.

 

[ding]

And by the way- I am really curious as to the 'absolute moral values' of Christianity.

Very, very curious.

I never said anything about Christianity. I said absolute truth, absolute morality. Objective truth is discovered through a conflict and confusion process. Diversity of thought is critical to the process. Growth filled communities explore all sides of an issue to arrive at objective truth. For any given thing there is a final state of fact. We call this objective truth. Objective truth is reality. Once discovered it is known that it was always that way and will always be that way. Thus it is eternal and unchanging.

The difference between objective and subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must die to self. Dying to self requires no thought of the consequences to self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations. Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth. That expectation exists because there a universal truth and is waiting to be discovered. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered.

 

[ding]

Which by the way is condemning respect for people of faith which is a form of subordination of religion.

If that is the case, are you not guilty of subordinating my beliefs?

Your belief in the negative?

How exactly have I disrespected them? Have I called you any names? Have I said you were stupid for not believing in God? All I have done is question you?

All you have done is imply that atheism is subordinate to religion- that is what this thread is.

You are implying that my not believing in your fairy tales is inferior to your belief in your fairy tales.

That is what this thread is about.

As I point out over and over- I don't start threads proclaiming the superiority of atheism to faith- I don't feel a need to convince you of faith that you are wrong- or inferior.

You are one who starts these threads.

Not me.

No. I’m not. I am stating the truth. Atheists cannot prove a negative so the only way they can validate their beliefs in the negative is to criticize the beliefs of others. Is that offensive to you? Why?

Why would atheists need to validate their beliefs?

They don’t. But that is exactly what they are trying to do when they argue against the religious beliefs of others.

 

[ding]

No. This thread does not imply that. This thread implies you can’t make an affirmative case for atheism. That the only case that can be made for atheism is attacking the beliefs of others who believe in God.

Are you really so blind as to not see that is indeed an attack on atheism.

Saying that I can only justify my lack in belief in any god implies I need to justify my lack of belief in any god.

Again- with the stamp collecting analogy- this thread implies that you cannot make an affirmative case for not collecting stamps. That the only case for not collecting stamps is attacking the desire of stamp collectors to collect stamps.

Atheists don't have to make a case for not believing in your fairy tales. It is as unnecessary as would be making a case for not collecting stamps.

Then prove me wrong and make your affirmative case for your beliefs.

Why would someone who doesn't collect stamps need to make an affirmative case for not collecting stamps?

Why do you believe that an atheist has any obligation to justify being an atheist?

No. Make your affirmative case for atheism.

Prove me wrong by making an affirmative case for atheism.

LOL yeah tell me again how you are not attacking me for not believing your fairy tales.

I look forward to your thread where you ask Jews to make an affirmative case for not believing in Jesus.

To prove you wrong by making an affirmative case for not believing that Jesus Christ is our saviour.

Because that is exactly what you are asking me to do.

I don't ask you to make an affirmative cases to prove your fairy tales are real. I don't care. I just don't believe in your fairy tales.

You are the one starting threads attempting to subordinate atheism to whatever it is that you believe in.

Just so we are clear, you are admitting you can’t make an affirmative case for atheism, right?

I am not asking you to prove me wrong by making an affirmative case for not believing that Jesus Christ is your savior. That is the case atheists make when they argue against the beliefs of Christians. I am asking you to make a positive or affirmative case for atheism. I am asking you to prove a negative. You were the one who implied through your stamp collecting analogy that you could make an affirmative case for atheism. I am the one who said it is impossible to make an affirmative case for atheism because you can’t prove a negative. That is the point of this OP. I am not attacking atheism. The OP is explaining that the only way they can validate their beliefs is though attacking and criticizing the beliefs of others and that is exactly what we see.

 

[ding]

Which by the way is condemning respect for people of faith which is a form of subordination of religion.

If that is the case, are you not guilty of subordinating my beliefs?

Your belief in the negative?

How exactly have I disrespected them? Have I called you any names? Have I said you were stupid for not believing in God? All I have done is question you?

Have you not claimed my stated beliefs are a lie? You have said I am not an atheist. Despite my statements to the contrary, you have proclaimed me a materialist. And you have repeatedly called me confused.

Had Syriusly said those things of you, you would certainly have made the accusation of subordination.

I said it is not logically possible to be an atheist and believe in a lifeforce. You took that to mean I called you a liar. I did not call you a liar. I disagreed with your belief that you can be an atheist and believe in a life force. Especially since you believe this lifeforce did not come from the material world.

I believe you are confused. When I asked what this lifeforce was and how you knew you had it you said you did not know but you knew you had it and you knew it did not originate from the material world. Which means you literally accepted it on faith. You accepted on faith something that was not from the material world. This is why I said your beliefs are not consistent with atheism and that you were confused.

 

[ding]

There are only two choices. Matter or spirit. Everything else will simply to one of these two common denominators.

No, I do not believe that. I have stated what I believe as far as Love. And that fits neither. Your repeated insistence does not change that.

Which makes perfect sense since you can’t explain it.

My not attempting to explain is not relevant. My beliefs are. And since we are discussing something that cannot be empirically explored, it is solely left to beliefs.

The fact that you can’t explain it and still believe it is a sign of faith.

The fact that you deny your materialism and believe that love is not spirit confirms your materialism. The odd thing is that you believe in a lifeforce but you are consistent in your inability to know what it is or how you know it. Apparently you take that on faith too.

But most telling is your firm belief that there is a universal code of common decency that you believe everyone knows and should follow.

I do not need faith to believe something I have experienced exists. The fact that I do not attempt to explain its properties or origins does not change that. You seem to think that, because I have experienced it, I should know all its properties and origins. Obviously a foolish supposition.

My belief that civil behavior among people should be expected has no relevancy to the topic.

It wasn’t that you didn’t attempt to explain its properties and origin. You admitted that you didn’t know what it was or how you knew you had a lifeforce and you knew the lifeforce did not originate from the material world. This is literally a textbook example of faith. More specifically, religious faith.

It isn’t your expectation of civility. It is your expectation of fairness. This expectation is universal. Everyone has it. You never hear someone arguing about something say, “the hell with your invisible law of fairness.” No. You hear arguments which appeal to universal fairness. We all expect everyone to understand this invisible code of common decency and fairness. We didn’t put it in us and we can’t get rid of it. This ought to arouse suspicion.

 

[WinterBorn]

Which by the way is condemning respect for people of faith which is a form of subordination of religion.

If that is the case, are you not guilty of subordinating my beliefs?

Your belief in the negative?

How exactly have I disrespected them? Have I called you any names? Have I said you were stupid for not believing in God? All I have done is question you?

Have you not claimed my stated beliefs are a lie? You have said I am not an atheist. Despite my statements to the contrary, you have proclaimed me a materialist. And you have repeatedly called me confused.

Had Syriusly said those things of you, you would certainly have made the accusation of subordination.

I said it is not logically possible to be an atheist and believe in a lifeforce. You took that to mean I called you a liar. I did not call you a liar. I disagreed with your belief that you can be an atheist and believe in a life force. Especially since you believe this lifeforce did not come from the material world.

I believe you are confused. When I asked what this lifeforce was and how you knew you had it you said you did not know but you knew you had it and you knew it did not originate from the material world. Which means you literally accepted it on faith. You accepted on faith something that was not from the material world. This is why I said your beliefs are not consistent with atheism and that you were confused.

I do not formulate my beliefs based on what others think. I do it based on my own life, experiences and my own study.

There is nothing inconsistent with my beliefs. I believe that there are incorporeal things that did not originate from the corporeal. I do not refer to them as a lifeforce or spirit. I have no reason to believe that those force are sentient or eternal. None of that is inconsistent with not believing in a god.

 

[WinterBorn]

No, I do not believe that. I have stated what I believe as far as Love. And that fits neither. Your repeated insistence does not change that.

Which makes perfect sense since you can’t explain it.

My not attempting to explain is not relevant. My beliefs are. And since we are discussing something that cannot be empirically explored, it is solely left to beliefs.

The fact that you can’t explain it and still believe it is a sign of faith.

The fact that you deny your materialism and believe that love is not spirit confirms your materialism. The odd thing is that you believe in a lifeforce but you are consistent in your inability to know what it is or how you know it. Apparently you take that on faith too.

But most telling is your firm belief that there is a universal code of common decency that you believe everyone knows and should follow.

I do not need faith to believe something I have experienced exists. The fact that I do not attempt to explain its properties or origins does not change that. You seem to think that, because I have experienced it, I should know all its properties and origins. Obviously a foolish supposition.

My belief that civil behavior among people should be expected has no relevancy to the topic.

It wasn’t that you didn’t attempt to explain its properties and origin. You admitted that you didn’t know what it was or how you knew you had a lifeforce and you knew the lifeforce did not originate from the material world. This is literally a textbook example of faith. More specifically, religious faith.

It isn’t your expectation of civility. It is your expectation of fairness. This expectation is universal. Everyone has it. You never hear someone arguing about something say, “the hell with your invisible law of fairness.” No. You hear arguments which appeal to universal fairness. We all expect everyone to understand this invisible code of common decency and fairness. We didn’t put it in us and we can’t get rid of it. This ought to arouse suspicion.

No, it is not a religious faith at all. I also did not say I knew anything of the kind. I said I believe. If you claim to KNOW, you are lying.

 

[ding]

I believe you don’t believe in absolute right and wrong. I believe your beliefs of right and wrong are morally relativistic.

I know you believe very strongly about right and wrong. Almost all humans do. It’s one of the reasons why I believe in God. Just because we don’t agree on what is right and wrong doesn’t mean God exists. It is because you feel so strongly about them that I know God exists.

So you are refuting your previous statement?

ven things like caring for others is about satisfying earthly pleasure. You do these things for the pleasure it gives you. You don’t do these things because It is the right thing to do. In fact, there can be no concept of right or wrong.

No. I stand by that. That is the logical consequence of materialism.

Great- then we are back to my previous challenge

Do you really believe that people who don't have religion can't have moral values? Because that is what you said.

Prove that I have no concept of right or wrong since I don't believe in any fairy tales.

Prove your position.

This can be an interesting debate- and if you would prefer we can start a new thread devoted exclusively to that topic- "Can athiests have a concept of right or wrong- and related- do those who have faith in a religion have superior concepts of what is right or wrong?

No. They can have moral values. They don’t believe moral values are absolute. So they can be anything a society decides.

Okay- so you have retracted your claim that atheists cannot have moral values.

But we are still left with your claim that I have no concept of right or wrong.

Prove that I have no concept of right or wrong since I don't believe in any fairy tales.

Prove your position.

Not exactly. I clarified it. I am assuming you read my signature on socialism and took it out of context. There are several sentences which must be read together to understand the context. I have no doubt you have morals. We may even agree on many of them. But I believe your morals tend to be relativistic.

Your moral relativism has nothing to do with not believing in my “fairy tales” as you so rudely put it. There are Christians who practice moral relativity. Just as there are atheists who believe in absolute morals.

Try to separate my signature line from this OP. This OP is limited to the fact that atheists cannot make an affirmative case for atheism because it is not possible to prove a negative. Which is why we see atheists in the religion forum criticizing the religions of others. It’s the only way they can validate their beliefs.

 

[WinterBorn]

So you are refuting your previous statement?

ven things like caring for others is about satisfying earthly pleasure. You do these things for the pleasure it gives you. You don’t do these things because It is the right thing to do. In fact, there can be no concept of right or wrong.

No. I stand by that. That is the logical consequence of materialism.

Great- then we are back to my previous challenge

Do you really believe that people who don't have religion can't have moral values? Because that is what you said.

Prove that I have no concept of right or wrong since I don't believe in any fairy tales.

Prove your position.

This can be an interesting debate- and if you would prefer we can start a new thread devoted exclusively to that topic- "Can athiests have a concept of right or wrong- and related- do those who have faith in a religion have superior concepts of what is right or wrong?

No. They can have moral values. They don’t believe moral values are absolute. So they can be anything a society decides.

Okay- so you have retracted your claim that atheists cannot have moral values.

But we are still left with your claim that I have no concept of right or wrong.

Prove that I have no concept of right or wrong since I don't believe in any fairy tales.

Prove your position.

Not exactly. I clarified it. I am assuming you read my signature on socialism and took it out of context. There are several sentences which must be read together to understand the context. I have no doubt you have morals. We may even agree on many of them. But I believe your morals tend to be relativistic.

Your moral relativism has nothing to do with not believing in my “fairy tales” as you so rudely put it. There are Christians who practice moral relativity. Just as there are atheists who believe in absolute morals.

Try to separate my signature line from this OP. This OP is limited to the fact that atheists cannot make an affirmative case for atheism because it is not possible to prove a negative. Which is why we see atheists in the religion forum criticizing the religions of others. It’s the only way they can validate their beliefs.

I am sure you would prefer to be able to post thread after thread ridiculing or condemning atheists, and have only religious people flocking here to agree and proclaim your brilliance. Not how it works.

 

[ding]

Which by the way is condemning respect for people of faith which is a form of subordination of religion.

If that is the case, are you not guilty of subordinating my beliefs?

Your belief in the negative?

How exactly have I disrespected them? Have I called you any names? Have I said you were stupid for not believing in God? All I have done is question you?

Have you not claimed my stated beliefs are a lie? You have said I am not an atheist. Despite my statements to the contrary, you have proclaimed me a materialist. And you have repeatedly called me confused.

Had Syriusly said those things of you, you would certainly have made the accusation of subordination.

I said it is not logically possible to be an atheist and believe in a lifeforce. You took that to mean I called you a liar. I did not call you a liar. I disagreed with your belief that you can be an atheist and believe in a life force. Especially since you believe this lifeforce did not come from the material world.

I believe you are confused. When I asked what this lifeforce was and how you knew you had it you said you did not know but you knew you had it and you knew it did not originate from the material world. Which means you literally accepted it on faith. You accepted on faith something that was not from the material world. This is why I said your beliefs are not consistent with atheism and that you were confused.

I do not formulate my beliefs based on what others think. I do it based on my own life, experiences and my own study.

There is nothing inconsistent with my beliefs. I believe that there are incorporeal things that did not originate from the corporeal. I do not refer to them as a lifeforce or spirit. I have no reason to believe that those force are sentient or eternal. None of that is inconsistent with not believing in a god.

I believe those beliefs are inconsistent with atheism. You are just calling it by another name but what you are describing is a spirit.

And yes there absolutely is a logical reason to believe they are eternal; they did not come from the material world. And if they are not sentient then how can you sense them at all.