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

[WinterBorn]

Our soul is our complete being. It is the essence of who we are. The body is just a physical manifestation of that.

That is what you believe. But you cannot prove that or even provide any empirical evidence of that.

So we are still at our beliefs.

 

[WinterBorn]

But yes, I believe love and music, among others things, originate from the soul. I believe that the electrochemical reactions in the brain are the body’s response or processing of those feelings.

You believe that. But you have no proof.

Sure I do. I just don’t have any proof that you will accept.

YOu keep saying that, and yet you do not offer any proof.

If it is not empirical or scientific proof, it is still based on belief.

 

[ding]

But yes, I believe love and music, among others things, originate from the soul. I believe that the electrochemical reactions in the brain are the body’s response or processing of those feelings.

You believe that. But you have no proof.

You don’t have any proof for why you believe in incorporeal that did not originate from the corporeal, right?

 

[ding]

But yes, I believe love and music, among others things, originate from the soul. I believe that the electrochemical reactions in the brain are the body’s response or processing of those feelings.

You believe that. But you have no proof.

Sure I do. I just don’t have any proof that you will accept.

YOu keep saying that, and yet you do not offer any proof.

If it is not empirical or scientific proof, it is still based on belief.

And that is different than what you have done?

It actually is different in that I have proof but that you reject the proof. You on the other hand have literally stated you believe in things that you have no proof for.

 

[WinterBorn]

But yes, I believe love and music, among others things, originate from the soul. I believe that the electrochemical reactions in the brain are the body’s response or processing of those feelings.

You believe that. But you have no proof.

Sure I do. I just don’t have any proof that you will accept.

YOu keep saying that, and yet you do not offer any proof.

If it is not empirical or scientific proof, it is still based on belief.

And that is different than what you have done?

It actually is different in that I have proof but that you reject the proof. You on the other hand have literally stated you believe in things that you have no proof for.

Have I rejected your proof? Or have you just claimed to have proof, but assume I will reject it? And will I reject it because it is not acutal scientific proof? Or for some nefarious reason?

Yes, I have discussed my beliefs. I do not know a lot of things. I am perfectly willing to admit this. It does not change the fact that I believe in them.

 

[WinterBorn]

But yes, I believe love and music, among others things, originate from the soul. I believe that the electrochemical reactions in the brain are the body’s response or processing of those feelings.

You believe that. But you have no proof.

You don’t have any proof for why you believe in incorporeal that did not originate from the corporeal, right?

I have stated, repeatedly, that I believe in the incorporeal that did not originate in the corporeal. Neither of us has scientific or empirical proof that the incorporeal even exists, much less its origins.

 

[sealybobo]

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?

Is it possible god will ever be anything more than a hypothesis?

In other words will he ever come and visit again?

He visited Joseph Smith in 1800. Mohammad in 1500. Mary 2000 years ago and Moses 7000 years ago.

Isn’t it convenient for you that he won’t come back?

 

[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.

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

So you can't prove that there is an absolute right or wrong or an absolute morality?

But condemn those who don't believe in fairy tales for not having absolute morality?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

You do realize you can make a personal attack without realizing that was what you are doing- right?

I will go back to my Jewish example.

Do you have any doubt that if you started a thread titled:
Is it possible for Judaism to ever be anything more than a critical theory?

And then further explained that Jews can only justify their lack of belief in Jesus Christ as their savior by attacking the beliefs of Christians

That Jews would not be offended or see that as an attack on them?

I don't doubt it.

Beyond that- you asked the question- and you refuse the answer of every athiest who has responded.

Let me put it another way- though I figure you will ignore this answer too- if there was no organzied religion, if there was no belief in gods or god by anyone in the world- my 'belief' would be exactly what my belief is now. Which is I don't believe in any of those fairy tales.

You ask whether my 'atheism' is dependent on being critical of religion- as I pointed out above- my 'atheism' would exist irregardless of whether any church existed in the world.

I am critical of religion when religion deserves to be criticized.

 

[Syriusly]

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'.

.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.

I think you meant to say 'can't prove God doesn't exist'

I explained my position repeatedly and you just refuse to accept my answer and keep dragging out false tropes.

As a matter of fact, while may think I have attacked your beliefs in this thread, actually I have mocked the belief in fairy tales. What I have not done is 'attack the affirmative arguments of religion'- whatever you may think that they are.

I have not spent time pointing out that absolute lack of proof that any god exists, I have not spent time pointing out the scientific fallacies contained in the Bible, nor have I listed the abuses by those who claim religious authority.

I have pointed out that I just don't believe in any fairy tales. I don't need to. I don't need to justify why I don't. And if there was not a single religion on Earth- I would still believe exactly the way I do now.

So I have explained this multiple times now- and you continue to attack my position by saying that I must attack your beliefs to maintain my position.

So I am left with two choices:
a) Just declare you a lost cause- blinded by your faith- and stop responding or
b) Actually challenge you on your faith.

I probably will go with A- because I think you are lost cause- totally unwilling to listen to anything other than what you have already decided.

 

[ding]

But yes, I believe love and music, among others things, originate from the soul. I believe that the electrochemical reactions in the brain are the body’s response or processing of those feelings.

You believe that. But you have no proof.

Sure I do. I just don’t have any proof that you will accept.

YOu keep saying that, and yet you do not offer any proof.

If it is not empirical or scientific proof, it is still based on belief.

And that is different than what you have done?

It actually is different in that I have proof but that you reject the proof. You on the other hand have literally stated you believe in things that you have no proof for.

Have I rejected your proof? Or have you just claimed to have proof, but assume I will reject it? And will I reject it because it is not acutal scientific proof? Or for some nefarious reason?

Yes, I have discussed my beliefs. I do not know a lot of things. I am perfectly willing to admit this. It does not change the fact that I believe in them.

You are right. You haven’t rejected it. I have little doubt that you would though.

There can be no direct scientific proof. Only indirect evidence that science can inform us on.

But that is for a different thread.

 

[ding]

But yes, I believe love and music, among others things, originate from the soul. I believe that the electrochemical reactions in the brain are the body’s response or processing of those feelings.

You believe that. But you have no proof.

You don’t have any proof for why you believe in incorporeal that did not originate from the corporeal, right?

I have stated, repeatedly, that I believe in the incorporeal that did not originate in the corporeal. Neither of us has scientific or empirical proof that the incorporeal even exists, much less its origins.

You are missing the point you literally have no basis for your belief that you can list. I do.

 

[ding]

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?

Is it possible god will ever be anything more than a hypothesis?

In other words will he ever come and visit again?

He visited Joseph Smith in 1800. Mohammad in 1500. Mary 2000 years ago and Moses 7000 years ago.

Isn’t it convenient for you that he won’t come back?

You would have to test the hypothesis to know.

 

[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?

So you can't prove that there is an absolute right or wrong or an absolute morality?

But condemn those who don't believe in fairy tales for not having absolute morality?

I can and I have. Find the highest possible standard for any given thing and there you have.

 

[ding]

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.

You do realize you can make a personal attack without realizing that was what you are doing- right?

I will go back to my Jewish example.

Do you have any doubt that if you started a thread titled:
Is it possible for Judaism to ever be anything more than a critical theory?

And then further explained that Jews can only justify their lack of belief in Jesus Christ as their savior by attacking the beliefs of Christians

That Jews would not be offended or see that as an attack on them?

I don't doubt it.

Beyond that- you asked the question- and you refuse the answer of every athiest who has responded.

Let me put it another way- though I figure you will ignore this answer too- if there was no organzied religion, if there was no belief in gods or god by anyone in the world- my 'belief' would be exactly what my belief is now. Which is I don't believe in any of those fairy tales.

You ask whether my 'atheism' is dependent on being critical of religion- as I pointed out above- my 'atheism' would exist irregardless of whether any church existed in the world.

I am critical of religion when religion deserves to be criticized.

No. I don’t realize that I have done that. Probably because I haven’t.

Religion is a tool. It can be used for good or bad. It’s not the fault of the tool.

Like I said before you criticize it to validate your beliefs because you have no other way to do so.

 

[ding]

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'.

.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.

I think you meant to say 'can't prove God doesn't exist'

I explained my position repeatedly and you just refuse to accept my answer and keep dragging out false tropes.

As a matter of fact, while may think I have attacked your beliefs in this thread, actually I have mocked the belief in fairy tales. What I have not done is 'attack the affirmative arguments of religion'- whatever you may think that they are.

I have not spent time pointing out that absolute lack of proof that any god exists, I have not spent time pointing out the scientific fallacies contained in the Bible, nor have I listed the abuses by those who claim religious authority.

I have pointed out that I just don't believe in any fairy tales. I don't need to. I don't need to justify why I don't. And if there was not a single religion on Earth- I would still believe exactly the way I do now.

So I have explained this multiple times now- and you continue to attack my position by saying that I must attack your beliefs to maintain my position.

So I am left with two choices:
a) Just declare you a lost cause- blinded by your faith- and stop responding or
b) Actually challenge you on your faith.

I probably will go with A- because I think you are lost cause- totally unwilling to listen to anything other than what you have already decided.

Yes. They can’t prove God doesn’t exist. Thank you. If they could prove that God doesn’t exist they could validate their beliefs that way.

I am not attacking your position. I am stating mine.

 

[WinterBorn]

But yes, I believe love and music, among others things, originate from the soul. I believe that the electrochemical reactions in the brain are the body’s response or processing of those feelings.

You believe that. But you have no proof.

You don’t have any proof for why you believe in incorporeal that did not originate from the corporeal, right?

I have stated, repeatedly, that I believe in the incorporeal that did not originate in the corporeal. Neither of us has scientific or empirical proof that the incorporeal even exists, much less its origins.

You are missing the point you literally have no basis for your belief that you can list. I do.

I have, as I said many pages ago, my own personal experiences and my life. That is all I need for a personal belief. After all, it is not as if I am rying to convince others that my belief is the only right one, nor am I trying to denigrate other people's beliefs.

 

[ding]

But yes, I believe love and music, among others things, originate from the soul. I believe that the electrochemical reactions in the brain are the body’s response or processing of those feelings.

You believe that. But you have no proof.

You don’t have any proof for why you believe in incorporeal that did not originate from the corporeal, right?

I have stated, repeatedly, that I believe in the incorporeal that did not originate in the corporeal. Neither of us has scientific or empirical proof that the incorporeal even exists, much less its origins.

You are missing the point you literally have no basis for your belief that you can list. I do.

I have, as I said many pages ago, my own personal experiences and my life. That is all I need for a personal belief. After all, it is not as if I am rying to convince others that my belief is the only right one, nor am I trying to denigrate other people's beliefs.

You have personal experiences with something that is intangible and did not come from the material world and is not sentient? I call bullshit on that.

 

[WinterBorn]

You believe that. But you have no proof.

You don’t have any proof for why you believe in incorporeal that did not originate from the corporeal, right?

I have stated, repeatedly, that I believe in the incorporeal that did not originate in the corporeal. Neither of us has scientific or empirical proof that the incorporeal even exists, much less its origins.

You are missing the point you literally have no basis for your belief that you can list. I do.

I have, as I said many pages ago, my own personal experiences and my life. That is all I need for a personal belief. After all, it is not as if I am rying to convince others that my belief is the only right one, nor am I trying to denigrate other people's beliefs.

You have personal experiences with something that is intangible and did not come from the material world and is not sentient? I call bullshit on that.

Not what I said. I have had personal experiences that led me to believe in the incorporeal. I have seen no evidence that it originated in the corporeal.

 

[ding]

You don’t have any proof for why you believe in incorporeal that did not originate from the corporeal, right?

I have stated, repeatedly, that I believe in the incorporeal that did not originate in the corporeal. Neither of us has scientific or empirical proof that the incorporeal even exists, much less its origins.

You are missing the point you literally have no basis for your belief that you can list. I do.

I have, as I said many pages ago, my own personal experiences and my life. That is all I need for a personal belief. After all, it is not as if I am rying to convince others that my belief is the only right one, nor am I trying to denigrate other people's beliefs.

You have personal experiences with something that is intangible and did not come from the material world and is not sentient? I call bullshit on that.

Not what I said. I have had personal experiences that led me to believe in the incorporeal. I have seen no evidence that it originated in the corporeal.

The incorporeal that isn’t sentient and did not originate from the material world? What ever could that possibly be?