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

[WinterBorn]

And beliefs require a rational basis? In order for you to claim that I am a materialist, you have to ignore what I have said about not believing in god or what I have said about believing in the incorporeal that does not originate in the corporeal. Do you not see what an egotistical or audacious move it is to try to argue that someone does not believe what they say they believe?

No. Actually I don't have to do any of those things. That's what is called a red herring.

You are hiding behind the definition of atheism and ignoring the intent. Atheism is not limited to no belief in God, atheism doesn't believe in any spirits whatsoever. Atheism is limited to beliefs in the natural world, your definition be damned.

Furthermore, you know full well that atheism is not just limited to not believing in the existence of God because you have carefully constructed your bullshit beliefs in the intangible that did not originate from the material world to be sentient. Everything about your belief is cloaked in secrecy as well.

What? So you are saying that Merriam-Webster and the Oxford English dictionaries are lying, and you know better? lol

I do not put much of my private life out for public consumption. Especially for someone who has lied, misquoted and attempted to twist my words to somehow show he knows better what I believe.

I believe there are incorporeal things, intangibles if you will, in the universe. I accept them. I do not believe in god. That is the full extent of what I have said. And somehow, in your audacity, you think you KNOW what I believe??

lol How funny.

There absolutely are intangibles in the universe which proceed from the material world. Absent any other information that is must be what you are describing. That still makes you a materialist though.

Once again, that would require my making an assumption based on facts not in evidence.

That's all you have been doing anyway. You don't know what you believe. You are assuming that.

Not at all. I have seen evidence for the incorporeal. Nothing that I can prove to anyone (sound familiar?).

What I have been doing is stating my beliefs.

 

[ding]

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

Oh, so now you adjust the definition to fit what you want, in order to tell me what I believe? lol Too funny.

There is no other way to describe what you have described other than what I have listed. And since you are unwilling to share the experience which led to your belief I have no other options available.

Actually, you do have another option. If you have spent time talking to someone, and they have not lied, you can assume they are telling the truth and modify your theory or claim accordingly.

Rather than insist that I am lying, would it not be simpler to just say "most atheists are materialists"? Or even "many atheists are materialists"? Must you attempt to tear someone down to avoid modifying a blanket statement?

I'm not tearing you down. Why do you think being called a materialist is a bad thing? Is it something you should be ashamed of?

I don't think being called a materialist is bad. I think being told my beliefs are wrong, or that I am wrong for believing them are bad things. I think someone telling me what I think or believe is about as egotistical a maneuver as is possible.

Your beliefs are illogical. The boundary conditions are mutually exclusive. Either everything proceeded from the material or everything proceeded from the spirit.

 

[WinterBorn]

As I said earlier, this long discussion has shown more about you and your need to be right than about my beliefs.

I see no point in continuing with someone willing to lie to avoid admitting their original supposition was wrong.

 

[ding]

No. Actually I don't have to do any of those things. That's what is called a red herring.

You are hiding behind the definition of atheism and ignoring the intent. Atheism is not limited to no belief in God, atheism doesn't believe in any spirits whatsoever. Atheism is limited to beliefs in the natural world, your definition be damned.

Furthermore, you know full well that atheism is not just limited to not believing in the existence of God because you have carefully constructed your bullshit beliefs in the intangible that did not originate from the material world to be sentient. Everything about your belief is cloaked in secrecy as well.

What? So you are saying that Merriam-Webster and the Oxford English dictionaries are lying, and you know better? lol

I do not put much of my private life out for public consumption. Especially for someone who has lied, misquoted and attempted to twist my words to somehow show he knows better what I believe.

I believe there are incorporeal things, intangibles if you will, in the universe. I accept them. I do not believe in god. That is the full extent of what I have said. And somehow, in your audacity, you think you KNOW what I believe??

lol How funny.

There absolutely are intangibles in the universe which proceed from the material world. Absent any other information that is must be what you are describing. That still makes you a materialist though.

Once again, that would require my making an assumption based on facts not in evidence.

That's all you have been doing anyway. You don't know what you believe. You are assuming that.

Not at all. I have seen evidence for the incorporeal. Nothing that I can prove to anyone (sound familiar?).

What I have been doing is stating my beliefs.

You can't even prove it to yourself. You have no basis for that belief. So, no, it doesn't sound familiar.

 

[ding]

As I said earlier, this long discussion has shown more about you and your need to be right than about my beliefs.

I see no point in continuing with someone willing to lie to avoid admitting their original supposition was wrong.

You misspelled illogical.

 

[Syriusly]

Did you know that gods who lie tend to cripple the notion of loving and perfect gods?

Is that so?

Can you tell me why you defend Israel in the Israel and Palestine forum?

Off topic.

Can you tell us why your gods would lie?

It’s because you are Jewish. And you are an atheist. Am I wrong?

So, you have no answer as to why your gods would lie?

Genesis 1 describes the beginning of creation in an allegorical fashion and is remarkably accurate. The universe did have a beginning and evolved in stages until beings that know and create arose.

We can use science today to confirm what ancient man knew 6000 years ago.

"Remarkably accurate"?
"We can use science today to confirm what ancient man knew 6,000 years ago"

Except.....of course that isn't true- except by the kind of cherry picking rationalizations that certain Christians make. Jews for some reason rarely try to make any attempt to defend any part of the Old Testament as being confirmed by science.

Like having day and night before the sun and the other stars existed
Like having the earth and moon being formed before the sun.
Like plants existing before the sun.

It takes a huge leap of faith to call that 'remarkably accurate' and being confirmed by science.

 

[Syriusly]

So, you have no answer as to why your gods would lie?

Genesis 1 describes the beginning of creation in an allegorical fashion and is remarkably accurate. The universe did have a beginning and evolved in stages until beings that know and create arose.

We can use science today to confirm what ancient man knew 6000 years ago.

You're spamming the thread with the same cut and paste nonsense. You're getting rather desperate.

Would you like to offer an opinion as to why the gods needed an excuse to lie?

I am showing that you don’t understand the ancient text of your own people.

It’s pretty dishonest to sidestep and evade. Why are you terrified to critically examine your religion?

The Bible correctly states that we were made from dust. Stardust to be specific. Did you know that the atoms in your body were present when space and time were created? Since that time they have merely changed form. It is amazing that the atoms in our body are 14 billion years old and were present when the universe was perfectly ordered and all matter and energy occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of a single atom.

Quite the rationalization to say that 'dust' equals atoms.

Frankly Genesis 2 could have said that man was made from ferns and you would be proclaiming here that ferns were really stardust and telling us the same shtick.

Yes- atoms are amazing- and the Bible doesn't mention them once.

 

[Syriusly]

So, you have no answer as to why your gods would lie?

Genesis 1 describes the beginning of creation in an allegorical fashion and is remarkably accurate. The universe did have a beginning and evolved in stages until beings that know and create arose.

We can use science today to confirm what ancient man knew 6000 years ago.

You're spamming the thread with the same cut and paste nonsense. You're getting rather desperate.

Would you like to offer an opinion as to why the gods needed an excuse to lie?

I am showing that you don’t understand the ancient text of your own people.

It’s pretty dishonest to sidestep and evade. Why are you terrified to critically examine your religion?

I am providing the affirmative case for my beliefs. Traditional theory will always defeat critical theory because traditional theory states what something is while critical theory tries to state what it isn’t. You will never be able to discover the truth about anything by trying to say what you think it isn’t.

LOL- you are providing rationalizations to fit the round pegs of the science into the square holes of your religious faith.

Using the term 'defeat' shows you think of this being a zero sum game- where your faith must defeat the non-beliefs of others- which is really rather sad.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

And beliefs require a rational basis? In order for you to claim that I am a materialist, you have to ignore what I have said about not believing in god or what I have said about believing in the incorporeal that does not originate in the corporeal. Do you not see what an egotistical or audacious move it is to try to argue that someone does not believe what they say they believe?

No. Actually I don't have to do any of those things. That's what is called a red herring.

You are hiding behind the definition of atheism and ignoring the intent. Atheism is not limited to no belief in God, atheism doesn't believe in any spirits whatsoever. Atheism is limited to beliefs in the natural world, your definition be damned.

Furthermore, you know full well that atheism is not just limited to not believing in the existence of God because you have carefully constructed your bullshit beliefs in the intangible that did not originate from the material world to not be sentient. Everything about your belief is cloaked in secrecy and irrationality.

Ding is getting testy by you using those damn definitions rather than just let Ding tell you what you believe.

Please do continue.

LOL

 

[Syriusly]

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.

And beliefs require a rational basis? In order for you to claim that I am a materialist, you have to ignore what I have said about not believing in god or what I have said about believing in the incorporeal that does not originate in the corporeal. Do you not see what an egotistical or audacious move it is to try to argue that someone does not believe what they say they believe?

No. Actually I don't have to do any of those things. That's what is called a red herring.

You are hiding behind the definition of atheism and ignoring the intent. Atheism is not limited to no belief in God, atheism doesn't believe in any spirits whatsoever. Atheism is limited to beliefs in the natural world, your definition be damned.

Furthermore, you know full well that atheism is not just limited to not believing in the existence of God because you have carefully constructed your bullshit beliefs in the intangible that did not originate from the material world to be sentient. Everything about your belief is cloaked in secrecy as well.

What? So you are saying that Merriam-Webster and the Oxford English dictionaries are lying, and you know better? lol

I do not put much of my private life out for public consumption. Especially for someone who has lied, misquoted and attempted to twist my words to somehow show he knows better what I believe.

I believe there are incorporeal things, intangibles if you will, in the universe. I accept them. I do not believe in god. That is the full extent of what I have said. And somehow, in your audacity, you think you KNOW what I believe??

lol How funny.

But remember- Ding didn't start this thread to attack atheists or attempt to subordinate what we do or do not believe.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Thrown together a strawman? So you think I do not actually believe what I say I believe?

I believe you have constructed it as to not offend your delicate atheist sensibilities.

That or you constructed it so as to not face the reality of your materialism.

So, yes.

My beliefs are not complex. But now you are calling me a liar. I have not lied. Whereas, I have shown that you have lied in these threads.

I actually think you believe your lies, so technically you aren't lying. The human mind cannot live in conflict.

You do realize that your statement could be thrown right back at you? Right?

I think your beliefs are false, but that you do believe them, so I don't call you a liar for proclaiming your belief in some form of a diety.

But you have indeed called Winter a liar- and you have called what he told you 'lies'.

Guess who is using 'critical theory' now......lol

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Oh, so now you adjust the definition to fit what you want, in order to tell me what I believe? lol Too funny.

There is no other way to describe what you have described other than what I have listed. And since you are unwilling to share the experience which led to your belief I have no other options available.

Actually, you do have another option. If you have spent time talking to someone, and they have not lied, you can assume they are telling the truth and modify your theory or claim accordingly.

Rather than insist that I am lying, would it not be simpler to just say "most atheists are materialists"? Or even "many atheists are materialists"? Must you attempt to tear someone down to avoid modifying a blanket statement?

I'm not tearing you down. Why do you think being called a materialist is a bad thing? Is it something you should be ashamed of?

You called him a liar.

You stated you don't he doesn't understand what he believes.

Yeah- you are tearing him down- but you still can't even recognize that is what this thread is all about.

No less than if you were walkin with a sign in front of synagogue on the Sabbath that said "Jesus saves- repent or you are going to hell"

 

[Syriusly]

But I can’t wait for a Jew to criticize the Torah. It should be interesting.

I can't wait for you to start a thread asking "is it possible for Judaism to ever be anything more than a critical theory that has to attack Jesus Christ as the risen god in order to justify their beliefs?

 

[G.T.]

As I said earlier, this long discussion has shown more about you and your need to be right than about my beliefs.

I see no point in continuing with someone willing to lie to avoid admitting their original supposition was wrong.

Honestly, it took you longer to realize than I would have guessed. Most folks get there, though.

 

[WinterBorn]

As I said earlier, this long discussion has shown more about you and your need to be right than about my beliefs.

I see no point in continuing with someone willing to lie to avoid admitting their original supposition was wrong.

Honestly, it took you longer to realize than I would have guessed. Most folks get there, though.

I am prone to stay in a debate/discussion far longer than I should. I guess I am stubborn that way.

 

[G.T.]

As I said earlier, this long discussion has shown more about you and your need to be right than about my beliefs.

I see no point in continuing with someone willing to lie to avoid admitting their original supposition was wrong.

Honestly, it took you longer to realize than I would have guessed. Most folks get there, though.

I am prone to stay in a debate/discussion far longer than I should. I guess I am stubborn that way.

Its okay. Its ding, man. He proposes either/ors when even the most basic of imaginations tells you that theres also maybe, ifs, if nots and we dont knows.

Its a lack of humility unmatched on these internet streetzz

 

[ding]

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

Oh, so now you adjust the definition to fit what you want, in order to tell me what I believe? lol Too funny.

There is no other way to describe what you have described other than what I have listed. And since you are unwilling to share the experience which led to your belief I have no other options available.

Actually, you do have another option. If you have spent time talking to someone, and they have not lied, you can assume they are telling the truth and modify your theory or claim accordingly.

Rather than insist that I am lying, would it not be simpler to just say "most atheists are materialists"? Or even "many atheists are materialists"? Must you attempt to tear someone down to avoid modifying a blanket statement?

I'm not tearing you down. Why do you think being called a materialist is a bad thing? Is it something you should be ashamed of?

You called him a liar.

You stated you don't he doesn't understand what he believes.

Yeah- you are tearing him down- but you still can't even recognize that is what this thread is all about.

No less than if you were walkin with a sign in front of synagogue on the Sabbath that said "Jesus saves- repent or you are going to hell"

So you believe being a materialist is an insult?

 

[ding]

But I can’t wait for a Jew to criticize the Torah. It should be interesting.

I can't wait for you to start a thread asking "is it possible for Judaism to ever be anything more than a critical theory that has to attack Jesus Christ as the risen god in order to justify their beliefs?

Don’t hold your breath. I don’t attack religions that are not my own.

 

[ding]

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

Thrown together a strawman? So you think I do not actually believe what I say I believe?

I believe you have constructed it as to not offend your delicate atheist sensibilities.

That or you constructed it so as to not face the reality of your materialism.

So, yes.

My beliefs are not complex. But now you are calling me a liar. I have not lied. Whereas, I have shown that you have lied in these threads.

I actually think you believe your lies, so technically you aren't lying. The human mind cannot live in conflict.

You do realize that your statement could be thrown right back at you? Right?

I think your beliefs are false, but that you do believe them, so I don't call you a liar for proclaiming your belief in some form of a diety.

But you have indeed called Winter a liar- and you have called what he told you 'lies'.

Guess who is using 'critical theory' now......lol

Sure. But I can list reasons why I believe as I do. He can’t. He has literally concocted a story to deny being a materialist. Why? I have no idea.

It doesn’t make any sense.

Do you believe everything has proceeded from matter? If so, you are a materialist. What is so bad about that?

 

[ding]

Genesis 1 describes the beginning of creation in an allegorical fashion and is remarkably accurate. The universe did have a beginning and evolved in stages until beings that know and create arose.

We can use science today to confirm what ancient man knew 6000 years ago.

You're spamming the thread with the same cut and paste nonsense. You're getting rather desperate.

Would you like to offer an opinion as to why the gods needed an excuse to lie?

I am showing that you don’t understand the ancient text of your own people.

It’s pretty dishonest to sidestep and evade. Why are you terrified to critically examine your religion?

The Bible correctly states that we were made from dust. Stardust to be specific. Did you know that the atoms in your body were present when space and time were created? Since that time they have merely changed form. It is amazing that the atoms in our body are 14 billion years old and were present when the universe was perfectly ordered and all matter and energy occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of a single atom.

Quite the rationalization to say that 'dust' equals atoms.

Frankly Genesis 2 could have said that man was made from ferns and you would be proclaiming here that ferns were really stardust and telling us the same shtick.

Yes- atoms are amazing- and the Bible doesn't mention them once.

Let’s take this debates to the bull ring.

Do you accept the challenge?