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

[WinterBorn]

There is literally no such thing as an atheist who does not believe that everything proceeds from the material world.

Only to someone who insists his definition of "atheist" is superior to that of the Oxford English dictionary and Merriam-Webster.

The only definition I have seen by those two (the best and most accepted dictionaries for the English language) is someone who does not believe in god. Nothing I have said I believe in requires a god in order to exist.

So you are literally making up your argument.

Atheists don’t believe in spirits.

I did not say I believed in spirits. Although, the accepted definition from the two best dictionaries in the English language only mention god. And do not mention spirits at all.

 

[ding]

Yes, illogical.

Can you scientifically study the incorporeal?

Then why believe it in the first place? Oh, because if you didn’t that would make you a materialist?

At some point you are going to have to face the facts. You are a materialist.

You have continued to say you can prove things, but I would not accept them. I have stated my reasons for believing certain things numerus times, and yet you refuse to accept them. Hypocrisy?

I have stated why I believe the way I do. Nothing you have said provides any valid reason for me to change that.

Actually you haven’t.

Yes, I have. I have stated that it was my life experiences and my study. The fact that I have not described those life experiences in detail does not change that.

Actually it does. You can make up anything you want without examination.

 

[WinterBorn]

Since it cannot be studied, I don't know what it is.

You don’t know what it is but you believe it isn’t sentient or from the material world or corporeal and you can’t explain why you believe any of those things. Is it Peter Pan?

I am not assuming it is sentient because there is no sign of sentience. I am not assuming it came from the corporeal because I see no sign of that either. I do not make assumptions on the sentience or origins because I do not know and, being incorporeal, it cannot be empirically studied.

Ummm... everything you have said about it are assumptions. And now you want to be selective on the assumptions you are making?

Sounds like bias to me.

As I have said, over and over, experiences in my life have shown the incorporeal to be believeable to me. The rest of what you ask, sentience and origins, has not been apparent to me.

There has been nothing illogical or inconsistent in my statements. I do not believe in god, therefore I am an atheist. I believe in the incorporeal that did not originate in the corporeal, so I am not a materialist. Nothing has changed in my beliefs, despite almost 100 pages of discussion.

What experiences and why did it lead you to believe in the intangible that did not originate from the material world and was not sentient?

Experiences in my life that I will not, for various reasons, detail here.

Suffice it to say that it shaped my beliefs.

 

[ding]

There is literally no such thing as an atheist who does not believe that everything proceeds from the material world.

Only to someone who insists his definition of "atheist" is superior to that of the Oxford English dictionary and Merriam-Webster.

The only definition I have seen by those two (the best and most accepted dictionaries for the English language) is someone who does not believe in god. Nothing I have said I believe in requires a god in order to exist.

So you are literally making up your argument.

Atheists don’t believe in spirits.

I did not say I believed in spirits. Although, the accepted definition from the two best dictionaries in the English language only mention god. And do not mention spirits at all.

God is spirit. Does the logic escape you that if atheists believed in spirit they would have to accept the possibility of God?

 

[ding]

You don’t know what it is but you believe it isn’t sentient or from the material world or corporeal and you can’t explain why you believe any of those things. Is it Peter Pan?

I am not assuming it is sentient because there is no sign of sentience. I am not assuming it came from the corporeal because I see no sign of that either. I do not make assumptions on the sentience or origins because I do not know and, being incorporeal, it cannot be empirically studied.

Ummm... everything you have said about it are assumptions. And now you want to be selective on the assumptions you are making?

Sounds like bias to me.

As I have said, over and over, experiences in my life have shown the incorporeal to be believeable to me. The rest of what you ask, sentience and origins, has not been apparent to me.

There has been nothing illogical or inconsistent in my statements. I do not believe in god, therefore I am an atheist. I believe in the incorporeal that did not originate in the corporeal, so I am not a materialist. Nothing has changed in my beliefs, despite almost 100 pages of discussion.

What experiences and why did it lead you to believe in the intangible that did not originate from the material world and was not sentient?

Experiences in my life that I will not, for various reasons, detail here.

Suffice it to say that it shaped my beliefs.

Which are there exists something that did not come from this world revealing its presence to you but it isn’t sentient or a spirit. Right?

 

[WinterBorn]

Can you scientifically study the incorporeal?

Then why believe it in the first place? Oh, because if you didn’t that would make you a materialist?

At some point you are going to have to face the facts. You are a materialist.

You have continued to say you can prove things, but I would not accept them. I have stated my reasons for believing certain things numerus times, and yet you refuse to accept them. Hypocrisy?

I have stated why I believe the way I do. Nothing you have said provides any valid reason for me to change that.

Actually you haven’t.

Yes, I have. I have stated that it was my life experiences and my study. The fact that I have not described those life experiences in detail does not change that.

Actually it does. You can make up anything you want without examination.

Since I am talking about my beliefs it does not change anything. That you do not accept my statements does not change my beliefs. YOur denigration and condemnation of my beliefs does not change them either. Even having your own personal definition of "atheist" does not change my beliefs.

But, since you cannot accept the beliefs of another person, based on their own statements, I don't see any purpose in continuing.

 

[ding]

Is it a ghost? A soul? A spirit? A mystical pizza?

 

[WinterBorn]

There is literally no such thing as an atheist who does not believe that everything proceeds from the material world.

Only to someone who insists his definition of "atheist" is superior to that of the Oxford English dictionary and Merriam-Webster.

The only definition I have seen by those two (the best and most accepted dictionaries for the English language) is someone who does not believe in god. Nothing I have said I believe in requires a god in order to exist.

So you are literally making up your argument.

Atheists don’t believe in spirits.

I did not say I believed in spirits. Although, the accepted definition from the two best dictionaries in the English language only mention god. And do not mention spirits at all.

God is spirit. Does the logic escape you that if atheists believed in spirit they would have to accept the possibility of God?

And does it occur to you that I have not used the word "spirit" in my descriptions of things?

 

[ding]

Then why believe it in the first place? Oh, because if you didn’t that would make you a materialist?

At some point you are going to have to face the facts. You are a materialist.

You have continued to say you can prove things, but I would not accept them. I have stated my reasons for believing certain things numerus times, and yet you refuse to accept them. Hypocrisy?

I have stated why I believe the way I do. Nothing you have said provides any valid reason for me to change that.

Actually you haven’t.

Yes, I have. I have stated that it was my life experiences and my study. The fact that I have not described those life experiences in detail does not change that.

Actually it does. You can make up anything you want without examination.

Since I am talking about my beliefs it does not change anything. That you do not accept my statements does not change my beliefs. YOur denigration and condemnation of my beliefs does not change them either. Even having your own personal definition of "atheist" does not change my beliefs.

But, since you cannot accept the beliefs of another person, based on their own statements, I don't see any purpose in continuing.

But you aren’t a materialist and that’s all that matters. I know you can’t be a materialist because you said so even though you have literally no rational basis for believing it.

 

[ding]

There is literally no such thing as an atheist who does not believe that everything proceeds from the material world.

Only to someone who insists his definition of "atheist" is superior to that of the Oxford English dictionary and Merriam-Webster.

The only definition I have seen by those two (the best and most accepted dictionaries for the English language) is someone who does not believe in god. Nothing I have said I believe in requires a god in order to exist.

So you are literally making up your argument.

Atheists don’t believe in spirits.

I did not say I believed in spirits. Although, the accepted definition from the two best dictionaries in the English language only mention god. And do not mention spirits at all.

God is spirit. Does the logic escape you that if atheists believed in spirit they would have to accept the possibility of God?

And does it occur to you that I have not used the word "spirit" in my descriptions of things?

Which is how I know you are a materialist.

 

[WinterBorn]

Can you scientifically study the incorporeal?

Then why believe it in the first place? Oh, because if you didn’t that would make you a materialist?

At some point you are going to have to face the facts. You are a materialist.

You have continued to say you can prove things, but I would not accept them. I have stated my reasons for believing certain things numerus times, and yet you refuse to accept them. Hypocrisy?

I have stated why I believe the way I do. Nothing you have said provides any valid reason for me to change that.

Actually you haven’t.

Yes, I have. I have stated that it was my life experiences and my study. The fact that I have not described those life experiences in detail does not change that.

Actually it does. You can make up anything you want without examination.

My beliefs are my beliefs. There is no need to delve into my personal experiences, most of which are not for public consumption. You will simply have to be satisfied with my statements of what I believe.

 

[WinterBorn]

You have continued to say you can prove things, but I would not accept them. I have stated my reasons for believing certain things numerus times, and yet you refuse to accept them. Hypocrisy?

I have stated why I believe the way I do. Nothing you have said provides any valid reason for me to change that.

Actually you haven’t.

Yes, I have. I have stated that it was my life experiences and my study. The fact that I have not described those life experiences in detail does not change that.

Actually it does. You can make up anything you want without examination.

Since I am talking about my beliefs it does not change anything. That you do not accept my statements does not change my beliefs. YOur denigration and condemnation of my beliefs does not change them either. Even having your own personal definition of "atheist" does not change my beliefs.

But, since you cannot accept the beliefs of another person, based on their own statements, I don't see any purpose in continuing.

But you aren’t a materialist and that’s all that matters. I know you can’t be a materialist because you said so even though you have literally no rational basis for believing it.

Does a materialist believe that there are incorporeal things that did not originate from the corporeal?

 

[Hollie]

I wasn't referring to theism, but to Christianity. I think most people understand theism is broader in scope and that God is part of nature and does not get into the religious aspects. It usually stays spiritual and/or metaphysical.

I have no reason to believe that the gods are a part of nature. For that matter, there is nothing that connects any alleged supernatural entities to the natural, rational world. We have no solid evidence of any gods or any supernatural realms, this despite multiple millennia of theories and claims and suppositions and books and icons and so on. Not one single verifiable shred of evidence that a god exists (and even an argument that states that if there were proof, it would defeat his requirement for pure faith), and in fact, a very youthful science that shows more and more every day that a god isn't even needed for reality to exist... god theories crumble quickly under the light of scientific knowledge.

You will want eternal gods who jump started everything (but you will not account for the gods prime cause). I want a cyclic universe where matter has always been, in both directions of time. Here's the difference:

My environment is non-sentient and it is discoverable as to the mechanism. Your environment has to account for an eternal sentient being (which you will never be able to fully account for), and you have to come up with reasons as to why they wouldn't tell you the truth about how it all began in their communications with you.

That's a tall order, especially when it's admitted the only ways of proving things is not available to that environment.

Yes, I have. There are no contradictions in the Bible and Genesis. Do you believe atheism is critical theory and this is one of its criticisms?

I’m not so sure you have ever read your bibles with a critical persprctive. Among the most oddly contradictory fables is the Genesis tale. If you would like to examine the Genesis fable, I’ll be glad to go through it with you.

A book is simply that, a book. Until there is a way to connect a supernatural being with the authorship of a book, it's safe to assume that the book is, in fact, merely written by men.

 

[ding]

Then why believe it in the first place? Oh, because if you didn’t that would make you a materialist?

At some point you are going to have to face the facts. You are a materialist.

You have continued to say you can prove things, but I would not accept them. I have stated my reasons for believing certain things numerus times, and yet you refuse to accept them. Hypocrisy?

I have stated why I believe the way I do. Nothing you have said provides any valid reason for me to change that.

Actually you haven’t.

Yes, I have. I have stated that it was my life experiences and my study. The fact that I have not described those life experiences in detail does not change that.

Actually it does. You can make up anything you want without examination.

My beliefs are my beliefs. There is no need to delve into my personal experiences, most of which are not for public consumption. You will simply have to be satisfied with my statements of what I believe.

Which make no sense. You have thrown together a strawman whose only purpose is to deny materialism without accepting spirituality.

 

[ding]

I wasn't referring to theism, but to Christianity. I think most people understand theism is broader in scope and that God is part of nature and does not get into the religious aspects. It usually stays spiritual and/or metaphysical.

I have no reason to believe that the gods are a part of nature. For that matter, there is nothing that connects any alleged supernatural entities to the natural, rational world. We have no solid evidence of any gods or any supernatural realms, this despite multiple millennia of theories and claims and suppositions and books and icons and so on. Not one single verifiable shred of evidence that a god exists (and even an argument that states that if there were proof, it would defeat his requirement for pure faith), and in fact, a very youthful science that shows more and more every day that a god isn't even needed for reality to exist... god theories crumble quickly under the light of scientific knowledge.

You will want eternal gods who jump started everything (but you will not account for the gods prime cause). I want a cyclic universe where matter has always been, in both directions of time. Here's the difference:

My environment is non-sentient and it is discoverable as to the mechanism. Your environment has to account for an eternal sentient being (which you will never be able to fully account for), and you have to come up with reasons as to why they wouldn't tell you the truth about how it all began in their communications with you.

That's a tall order, especially when it's admitted the only ways of proving things is not available to that environment.

Yes, I have. There are no contradictions in the Bible and Genesis. Do you believe atheism is critical theory and this is one of its criticisms?

I’m not so sure you have ever read your bibles with a critical persprctive. Among the most oddly contradictory fables is the Genesis tale. If you would like to examine the Genesis fable, I’ll be glad to go through it with you.

A book is simply that, a book. Until there is a way to connect a supernatural being with the authorship of a book, it's safe to assume that the book is, in fact, merely written by men.

Do you know what the account of the Tower of Babel is about?

 

[ding]

Actually you haven’t.

Yes, I have. I have stated that it was my life experiences and my study. The fact that I have not described those life experiences in detail does not change that.

Actually it does. You can make up anything you want without examination.

Since I am talking about my beliefs it does not change anything. That you do not accept my statements does not change my beliefs. YOur denigration and condemnation of my beliefs does not change them either. Even having your own personal definition of "atheist" does not change my beliefs.

But, since you cannot accept the beliefs of another person, based on their own statements, I don't see any purpose in continuing.

But you aren’t a materialist and that’s all that matters. I know you can’t be a materialist because you said so even though you have literally no rational basis for believing it.

Does a materialist believe that there are incorporeal things that did not originate from the corporeal?

Yes, when he denies they are spirit or soul or life force or sentient.

 

[Hollie]

I wasn't referring to theism, but to Christianity. I think most people understand theism is broader in scope and that God is part of nature and does not get into the religious aspects. It usually stays spiritual and/or metaphysical.

I have no reason to believe that the gods are a part of nature. For that matter, there is nothing that connects any alleged supernatural entities to the natural, rational world. We have no solid evidence of any gods or any supernatural realms, this despite multiple millennia of theories and claims and suppositions and books and icons and so on. Not one single verifiable shred of evidence that a god exists (and even an argument that states that if there were proof, it would defeat his requirement for pure faith), and in fact, a very youthful science that shows more and more every day that a god isn't even needed for reality to exist... god theories crumble quickly under the light of scientific knowledge.

You will want eternal gods who jump started everything (but you will not account for the gods prime cause). I want a cyclic universe where matter has always been, in both directions of time. Here's the difference:

My environment is non-sentient and it is discoverable as to the mechanism. Your environment has to account for an eternal sentient being (which you will never be able to fully account for), and you have to come up with reasons as to why they wouldn't tell you the truth about how it all began in their communications with you.

That's a tall order, especially when it's admitted the only ways of proving things is not available to that environment.

Yes, I have. There are no contradictions in the Bible and Genesis. Do you believe atheism is critical theory and this is one of its criticisms?

I’m not so sure you have ever read your bibles with a critical persprctive. Among the most oddly contradictory fables is the Genesis tale. If you would like to examine the Genesis fable, I’ll be glad to go through it with you.

A book is simply that, a book. Until there is a way to connect a supernatural being with the authorship of a book, it's safe to assume that the book is, in fact, merely written by men.

Do you know what the account of the Tower of Babel is about?

Do you know that the gods lied in the Genesis fable?

 

[ding]

I wasn't referring to theism, but to Christianity. I think most people understand theism is broader in scope and that God is part of nature and does not get into the religious aspects. It usually stays spiritual and/or metaphysical.

I have no reason to believe that the gods are a part of nature. For that matter, there is nothing that connects any alleged supernatural entities to the natural, rational world. We have no solid evidence of any gods or any supernatural realms, this despite multiple millennia of theories and claims and suppositions and books and icons and so on. Not one single verifiable shred of evidence that a god exists (and even an argument that states that if there were proof, it would defeat his requirement for pure faith), and in fact, a very youthful science that shows more and more every day that a god isn't even needed for reality to exist... god theories crumble quickly under the light of scientific knowledge.

You will want eternal gods who jump started everything (but you will not account for the gods prime cause). I want a cyclic universe where matter has always been, in both directions of time. Here's the difference:

My environment is non-sentient and it is discoverable as to the mechanism. Your environment has to account for an eternal sentient being (which you will never be able to fully account for), and you have to come up with reasons as to why they wouldn't tell you the truth about how it all began in their communications with you.

That's a tall order, especially when it's admitted the only ways of proving things is not available to that environment.

Yes, I have. There are no contradictions in the Bible and Genesis. Do you believe atheism is critical theory and this is one of its criticisms?

I’m not so sure you have ever read your bibles with a critical persprctive. Among the most oddly contradictory fables is the Genesis tale. If you would like to examine the Genesis fable, I’ll be glad to go through it with you.

A book is simply that, a book. Until there is a way to connect a supernatural being with the authorship of a book, it's safe to assume that the book is, in fact, merely written by men.

Do you know what the account of the Tower of Babel is about?

Do you know that the gods lied in the Genesis fable?

It’s ok if you can’t explain the account of the Tower of Babel. I haven’t yet met a Jew who understood what it is about.

 

[ding]

I wasn't referring to theism, but to Christianity. I think most people understand theism is broader in scope and that God is part of nature and does not get into the religious aspects. It usually stays spiritual and/or metaphysical.

I have no reason to believe that the gods are a part of nature. For that matter, there is nothing that connects any alleged supernatural entities to the natural, rational world. We have no solid evidence of any gods or any supernatural realms, this despite multiple millennia of theories and claims and suppositions and books and icons and so on. Not one single verifiable shred of evidence that a god exists (and even an argument that states that if there were proof, it would defeat his requirement for pure faith), and in fact, a very youthful science that shows more and more every day that a god isn't even needed for reality to exist... god theories crumble quickly under the light of scientific knowledge.

You will want eternal gods who jump started everything (but you will not account for the gods prime cause). I want a cyclic universe where matter has always been, in both directions of time. Here's the difference:

My environment is non-sentient and it is discoverable as to the mechanism. Your environment has to account for an eternal sentient being (which you will never be able to fully account for), and you have to come up with reasons as to why they wouldn't tell you the truth about how it all began in their communications with you.

That's a tall order, especially when it's admitted the only ways of proving things is not available to that environment.

Yes, I have. There are no contradictions in the Bible and Genesis. Do you believe atheism is critical theory and this is one of its criticisms?

I’m not so sure you have ever read your bibles with a critical persprctive. Among the most oddly contradictory fables is the Genesis tale. If you would like to examine the Genesis fable, I’ll be glad to go through it with you.

A book is simply that, a book. Until there is a way to connect a supernatural being with the authorship of a book, it's safe to assume that the book is, in fact, merely written by men.

Do you know what the account of the Tower of Babel is about?

Do you know that the gods lied in the Genesis fable?

Do you know the significance of Adam and Eve hiding? Or the significance of their answers when God asked them if they had eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil?

 

[ding]

I wasn't referring to theism, but to Christianity. I think most people understand theism is broader in scope and that God is part of nature and does not get into the religious aspects. It usually stays spiritual and/or metaphysical.

I have no reason to believe that the gods are a part of nature. For that matter, there is nothing that connects any alleged supernatural entities to the natural, rational world. We have no solid evidence of any gods or any supernatural realms, this despite multiple millennia of theories and claims and suppositions and books and icons and so on. Not one single verifiable shred of evidence that a god exists (and even an argument that states that if there were proof, it would defeat his requirement for pure faith), and in fact, a very youthful science that shows more and more every day that a god isn't even needed for reality to exist... god theories crumble quickly under the light of scientific knowledge.

You will want eternal gods who jump started everything (but you will not account for the gods prime cause). I want a cyclic universe where matter has always been, in both directions of time. Here's the difference:

My environment is non-sentient and it is discoverable as to the mechanism. Your environment has to account for an eternal sentient being (which you will never be able to fully account for), and you have to come up with reasons as to why they wouldn't tell you the truth about how it all began in their communications with you.

That's a tall order, especially when it's admitted the only ways of proving things is not available to that environment.

Yes, I have. There are no contradictions in the Bible and Genesis. Do you believe atheism is critical theory and this is one of its criticisms?

I’m not so sure you have ever read your bibles with a critical persprctive. Among the most oddly contradictory fables is the Genesis tale. If you would like to examine the Genesis fable, I’ll be glad to go through it with you.

A book is simply that, a book. Until there is a way to connect a supernatural being with the authorship of a book, it's safe to assume that the book is, in fact, merely written by men.

Do you know what the account of the Tower of Babel is about?

Do you know that the gods lied in the Genesis fable?

Are you Jewish per chance?