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

[ding]

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.

I am not mocking or ridiculing anyone and if you feel mocked or ridiculed I truly apologize. That is not my intent. My internet is to comment on the observations I have made and the logic of the conclusions I reached from studying those observations.

 

[ding]

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.

That the essence of faith.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

As I have said, I believe "spirit" means a sentient being.

My being able to sense them has absolutely nothing to do with them being sentient.

The fact that you say my beliefs are inconsistent with atheism is because you choose to use your own definition for the word. I use the definition from the two most comprehensive and widely accepted dictionaries for the English language.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

That the essence of faith.

It is belief. No religious implication at all.

 

[james bond]

I don't believe it is possible for atheism to ever be anything more than critical theory because there is no affirmative case for atheism. The only argument of atheism is to argue against religion and to criticize religion.

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

LOL- not this again!
As an atheist I can criticize any religion of course- but I don't need to argue against religion to be an Atheist.

I just don't believe in any of your fairy tales- nothing more complicated than that. I have no grand critical theory- I just don't believe in the tales you tell each other.

Hell you 'religionists' can't even agree on a common theme- you argue between yourself about which is the true god or gods- without any critical evidence that any gods ever existed.

I don't have to argue against religion to just not believe in leprechauns or unicorns or Thor or Coyote or God.

What you're doing is citing a fallacy of hasty generalization. Just because leprechauns, unicorns, Thor, etc. does not exist physically doesn't mean that the Christian God does not exist. It's one of the biggest mistakes atheist science makes. s.

How do you know that leprechauns, unicorns and Thor don't exist?

There is no 'hasty generalization' on my part- what you are doing is buying into the Christian mythologists fallacy- that because more people believe in your fairy than people believe in leprechauns that your fairy tales are somehow 'real' and everyone else is wrong.

As I said before- I don't have to argue against religion to just not believe in leprechauns, unicorns, Thor, Coyote, or God.

If you don't know, then you'll have to google. Even if they do not physically exist, they exist in the mind as many know what you are referring to.

What you don't understand is you are lumping imaginary things with real such as God..

What you don't understand is that leprechauns are as real as God and Santa Claus.

You must ♥ and go koo koo for those leprechauns. It must be the beard haha. Santa Claus started from St. Nicholas, a real person. And God has always been.

St. Nicholas | Biography, Facts, & Feast Day

As I have been saying, atheists are usually wrong.

Also, you're still criticizing things that actually exist.

 

[james bond]

And?

Hawking could only describe how the universe started in the Big Bang Theory. He didn't know why it started.

Furthermore, I have come up with an experiment to show that one can't travel back into time. This means that multiverse theory is pseudoscience. Every decision does not create a parallel universe. It was a silly idea anyway. Quantum mechanics got stuffed by regular physics.

 

[Syriusly]

And?

Hawking could only describe how the universe started in the Big Bang Theory. He didn't know why it started.s.

And?

 

[Syriusly]

LOL- not this again!
As an atheist I can criticize any religion of course- but I don't need to argue against religion to be an Atheist.

I just don't believe in any of your fairy tales- nothing more complicated than that. I have no grand critical theory- I just don't believe in the tales you tell each other.

Hell you 'religionists' can't even agree on a common theme- you argue between yourself about which is the true god or gods- without any critical evidence that any gods ever existed.

I don't have to argue against religion to just not believe in leprechauns or unicorns or Thor or Coyote or God.

What you're doing is citing a fallacy of hasty generalization. Just because leprechauns, unicorns, Thor, etc. does not exist physically doesn't mean that the Christian God does not exist. It's one of the biggest mistakes atheist science makes. s.

How do you know that leprechauns, unicorns and Thor don't exist?

There is no 'hasty generalization' on my part- what you are doing is buying into the Christian mythologists fallacy- that because more people believe in your fairy than people believe in leprechauns that your fairy tales are somehow 'real' and everyone else is wrong.

As I said before- I don't have to argue against religion to just not believe in leprechauns, unicorns, Thor, Coyote, or God.

If you don't know, then you'll have to google. Even if they do not physically exist, they exist in the mind as many know what you are referring to.

What you don't understand is you are lumping imaginary things with real such as God..

What you don't understand is that leprechauns are as real as God and Santa Claus.

You must ♥ and go koo koo for those leprechauns. It must be the beard haha. Santa Claus started from St. Nicholas, a real person. And God has always been.

St. Nicholas | Biography, Facts, & Feast Day

As I have been saying, atheists are usually wrong.

Also, you're still criticizing things that actually exist.

As I have been saying you cultist are usually crazy.

I am familiar with how St. Nicholas was the distant partial inspiration for America's current Santa Claus- but yes I understand to you Santa Claus, god and leprechauns are all real.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Lots of words. And i get that this is your personal philosophy.

Prove there is an absolute morality.

Give me a concrete example.

Prove there is an absolute right and wrong- that a person who believes in any god will know- but a person who doesn't believe in any god will not know.

Because so far all you have are lots of words and a rather pretentious sense of superiority.

 

[Syriusly]

You mean you believe in absolute morals? You don’t believe that morals can change depending on the culture or society?

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?

Still waiting for your to prove your position

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?

 

[Syriusly]

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. .

Does everyone who believes in any religion know absolute morality?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Yet it was not an atheist who started this thread- there was no atheist trying to win an argument against your religious beliefs- it was you arguing against my lack of belief in your gods.

I have no need to validate my lack of belief in your gods, any more than a Jew has a need to validate his lack of belief in Jesus Christ as a saviour.

And if you want to know whether this thread is an attack on atheists- just substitute Jew for Atheists t and look at it again.

 

[Syriusly]

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?
.

Just so we are clear, you are admitting that you are trying to subordinate Judaism to Christianity, right?

LOL- please don't put words in my mouth- and I won't put words in yours.

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

 

[Syriusly]

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.

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.

I see my analogy went right over your head.

Would you ask a Jew to make a positive or affirmative case for not believing in Jesus Christ as a saviour? If so, I truly look forward to seeing you start that thread.....

I never implied one way or the other whether I could make an affirmative case for my not believing in your fairy tales. I am saying it is offensive to me that you think I have any obligation to make such a case.

I don't need to validate my lack of belief in your gods, or leprechauns, or bigfoot- and when I criticize those who do believe in such fairy tales, I do so because you people have once again tried to subordinate my lack of beliefs to your beliefs.

You seem to be under the supreme misconception that I have any need to criticize your fairy tales in order to justify my not believing in them. I just don't believe in them- I see absolutely no evidence that your gods or leprechauns or bigfoot exist- so I don't 'believe'.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

While I did read your signature and find it amusing, I have not based any of my responses on your signature.

Tell me more about my 'moral relativism' versus your moral absolutism'- give me concrete examples.

More specifically- prove what you claimed about me- prove that I have no concept of right or wrong. Do you want me to go back to your original quote?

 

[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.

Lots of words. And i get that this is your personal philosophy.

Prove there is an absolute morality.

Give me a concrete example.

Prove there is an absolute right and wrong- that a person who believes in any god will know- but a person who doesn't believe in any god will not know.

Because so far all you have are lots of words and a rather pretentious sense of superiority.

I am more than happy for you not to believe what I wrote. Why should I care to try to convince you?

 

[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. .

Does everyone who believes in any religion know absolute morality?

No. I actually said that in the posts you didn’t read.

 

[ding]

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.

Yet it was not an atheist who started this thread- there was no atheist trying to win an argument against your religious beliefs- it was you arguing against my lack of belief in your gods.

I have no need to validate my lack of belief in your gods, any more than a Jew has a need to validate his lack of belief in Jesus Christ as a saviour.

And if you want to know whether this thread is an attack on atheists- just substitute Jew for Atheists t and look at it again.

II’ve already explained it more than once. I’m not going to keep repeating the same answer.

 

[ding]

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?
.

Just so we are clear, you are admitting that you are trying to subordinate Judaism to Christianity, right?

LOL- please don't put words in my mouth- and I won't put words in yours.

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

I don’t see how I am subordinating Judaism. I believe in Judaism. Christianity is effectively a sect of Judaism. I don’t subordinate any religion. I believe all religions are more similar than dissimilar.

I am sorry that you take this thread as a personal attack it’s not meant to be.

 

[ding]

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.

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.

I see my analogy went right over your head.

Would you ask a Jew to make a positive or affirmative case for not believing in Jesus Christ as a saviour? If so, I truly look forward to seeing you start that thread.....

I never implied one way or the other whether I could make an affirmative case for my not believing in your fairy tales. I am saying it is offensive to me that you think I have any obligation to make such a case.

I don't need to validate my lack of belief in your gods, or leprechauns, or bigfoot- and when I criticize those who do believe in such fairy tales, I do so because you people have once again tried to subordinate my lack of beliefs to your beliefs.

You seem to be under the supreme misconception that I have any need to criticize your fairy tales in order to justify my not believing in them. I just don't believe in them- I see absolutely no evidence that your gods or leprechauns or bigfoot exist- so I don't 'believe'.

You see lots of things. Mostly what you want to see. Jews can make an affirmative case for their beliefs. All religions can make an affirmative case for their beliefs. They do not need to criticize a religion that is not their own to make an affirmative case for their beliefs. They don’t need to prove a negative. Atheism does. Atheists say all the time that they can’t prove God exists because they can’t prove a negative. So all that is left is for them to attack the affirmative arguments of religion.