Is it ethical to only practice critical theory?

[ding]

Critical theory is the Cultural Marxist practice to criticize what one does not believe to arrive at what one does believe without ever having to examine what one believes. Practitioners of critical theory confuse critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity.

My question is... is it ethical to only criticize what one doesn't believe to arrive at what one does believe without ever examining what one believes?

 

[BlackFlag]

Critical theory is the Cultural Marxist practice to criticize what one does not believe to arrive at what one does believe without ever having to examine what one believes. Practitioners of critical theory confuse critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity.

My question is... is it ethical to only criticize what one doesn't believe to arrive at what one does believe without ever examining what one believes?

Which one is critical thinking:

A) how did we get here?
B) magic made us

 

[ding]

Critical theory is the Cultural Marxist practice to criticize what one does not believe to arrive at what one does believe without ever having to examine what one believes. Practitioners of critical theory confuse critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity.

My question is... is it ethical to only criticize what one doesn't believe to arrive at what one does believe without ever examining what one believes?

Which one is critical thinking:

A) how did we get here?
B) magic made us

Neither. They are both questions. Although the last one proves my point that you are only capable of critical theory arguments.

But if you want to know how we got here it is because the laws of nature which existed before space and time predestined beings that know and create would eventually arise given enough time and the right conditions.

 

[BlackFlag]

it is because the laws of nature which existed before space and time predestined beings that know and create would eventually arise given enough time and the right conditions.

^ magical assumption based on nothing

 

[ding]

it is because the laws of nature which existed before space and time predestined beings that know and create would eventually arise given enough time and the right conditions.

^ magical assumption based on nothing

No. It's called inflation theory. You should read up on it. It explain show space and time were created from nothing without violating the law of conservation and began to expand and cool until such time that beings that know and create were ultimately produced according to the laws of nature which existed before space and time.

Do you even have any science background at all?

 

[Natural Citizen]

Relevant reading - The Frankfurt School and Critical Theory

 

[ding]

Relevant reading - The Frankfurt School and Critical Theory

I know all about it.

Do you know who John Dewey is and his connection?

 

[BlackFlag]

it is because the laws of nature which existed before space and time predestined beings that know and create would eventually arise given enough time and the right conditions.

^ magical assumption based on nothing

No. It's called inflation theory. You should read up on it. It explain show space and time were created from nothing without violating the law of conservation and began to expand and cool until such time that beings that know and create were ultimately produced according to the laws of nature which existed before space and time.

Do you even have any science background at all?

You claim knowledge of what there was before space and time. That's a magical assumption based on nothing.

 

[ding]

it is because the laws of nature which existed before space and time predestined beings that know and create would eventually arise given enough time and the right conditions.

^ magical assumption based on nothing

No. It's called inflation theory. You should read up on it. It explain show space and time were created from nothing without violating the law of conservation and began to expand and cool until such time that beings that know and create were ultimately produced according to the laws of nature which existed before space and time.

Do you even have any science background at all?

You claim knowledge of what there was before space and time. That's a magical assumption based on nothing.

So how else do you think the universe was created if not by following rules? Specifically the laws of quantum mechanics and the laws of conservation.

You really only have two options and it appears that you have chosen magic while I have chosen the laws of nature.

 

[BlackFlag]

it is because the laws of nature which existed before space and time predestined beings that know and create would eventually arise given enough time and the right conditions.

^ magical assumption based on nothing

No. It's called inflation theory. You should read up on it. It explain show space and time were created from nothing without violating the law of conservation and began to expand and cool until such time that beings that know and create were ultimately produced according to the laws of nature which existed before space and time.

Do you even have any science background at all?

You claim knowledge of what there was before space and time. That's a magical assumption based on nothing.

So how else do you think the universe was created if not by following rules? Specifically the laws of quantum mechanics and the laws of conservation.

You really only have two options and it appears that you have chosen magic while I have chosen the laws of nature.

You chose that a magical creator invented the laws. You have never even approached anything that can count as evidence for that.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Relevant reading - The Frankfurt School and Critical Theory

I know all about it.

Do you know who John Dewey is and his connection?

Yeah. I have about half a paper typed about that whole group.

 

[ding]

it is because the laws of nature which existed before space and time predestined beings that know and create would eventually arise given enough time and the right conditions.

^ magical assumption based on nothing

No. It's called inflation theory. You should read up on it. It explain show space and time were created from nothing without violating the law of conservation and began to expand and cool until such time that beings that know and create were ultimately produced according to the laws of nature which existed before space and time.

Do you even have any science background at all?

You claim knowledge of what there was before space and time. That's a magical assumption based on nothing.

So how else do you think the universe was created if not by following rules? Specifically the laws of quantum mechanics and the laws of conservation.

You really only have two options and it appears that you have chosen magic while I have chosen the laws of nature.

You chose that a magical creator invented the laws. You have never even approached anything that can count as evidence for that.

If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning.

The best explanation for how the universe began is the inflation model. It is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

 

[ding]

Relevant reading - The Frankfurt School and Critical Theory

I know all about it.

Do you know who John Dewey is and his connection?

Yeah. I have about half a paper typed about that whole group.

We have had four generations indoctrinated in it.

You can see their behaviors here.

 

[BULLDOG]

Critical theory is the Cultural Marxist practice to criticize what one does not believe to arrive at what one does believe without ever having to examine what one believes. Practitioners of critical theory confuse critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity.

My question is... is it ethical to only criticize what one doesn't believe to arrive at what one does believe without ever examining what one believes?

Which one is critical thinking:

A) how did we get here?
B) magic made us

Neither. They are both questions. Although the last one proves my point that you are only capable of critical theory arguments.

But if you want to know how we got here it is because the laws of nature which existed before space and time predestined beings that know and create would eventually arise given enough time and the right conditions.

How do you know that?

 

[ding]

Critical theory is the Cultural Marxist practice to criticize what one does not believe to arrive at what one does believe without ever having to examine what one believes. Practitioners of critical theory confuse critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity.

My question is... is it ethical to only criticize what one doesn't believe to arrive at what one does believe without ever examining what one believes?

Which one is critical thinking:

A) how did we get here?
B) magic made us

Neither. They are both questions. Although the last one proves my point that you are only capable of critical theory arguments.

But if you want to know how we got here it is because the laws of nature which existed before space and time predestined beings that know and create would eventually arise given enough time and the right conditions.

How do you know that?

Through science but let’s try to stay on topic, ok?

 

[BULLDOG]

Critical theory is the Cultural Marxist practice to criticize what one does not believe to arrive at what one does believe without ever having to examine what one believes. Practitioners of critical theory confuse critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity.

My question is... is it ethical to only criticize what one doesn't believe to arrive at what one does believe without ever examining what one believes?

Which one is critical thinking:

A) how did we get here?
B) magic made us

Neither. They are both questions. Although the last one proves my point that you are only capable of critical theory arguments.

But if you want to know how we got here it is because the laws of nature which existed before space and time predestined beings that know and create would eventually arise given enough time and the right conditions.

How do you know that?

Through science but let’s try to stay on topic, ok?

Through science? WTH is that supposed to mean? The topic is "do atheists only trash religion, but never reevaluate their beliefs" (paraphrased). I don't believe in unicorns. I believe anyone who does is an idiot. Do you really think I should periodically reevaluate my disbelief in unicorns? Am I unreasonable to say people that do are idiots?

 

[ding]

Critical theory is the Cultural Marxist practice to criticize what one does not believe to arrive at what one does believe without ever having to examine what one believes. Practitioners of critical theory confuse critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity.

My question is... is it ethical to only criticize what one doesn't believe to arrive at what one does believe without ever examining what one believes?

Which one is critical thinking:

A) how did we get here?
B) magic made us

Neither. They are both questions. Although the last one proves my point that you are only capable of critical theory arguments.

But if you want to know how we got here it is because the laws of nature which existed before space and time predestined beings that know and create would eventually arise given enough time and the right conditions.

How do you know that?

Through science but let’s try to stay on topic, ok?

Through science? WTH is that supposed to mean? The topic is "do atheists only trash religion, but never reevaluate their beliefs" (paraphrased). I don't believe in unicorns. I believe anyone who does is an idiot. Do you really think I should periodically reevaluate my disbelief in unicorns? Am I unreasonable to say people that do are idiots?

Your only beliefs are criticisms of beliefs of others?

How does that not prove my point?

It seems you want to argue that you are justified in doing so.

The problem is that you aren’t criticizing their beliefs. You are criticizing your straw man construction of their beliefs.

That’s pretty silly if you ask me.

 

[ding]

Critical theory is the Cultural Marxist practice to criticize what one does not believe to arrive at what one does believe without ever having to examine what one believes. Practitioners of critical theory confuse critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity.

My question is... is it ethical to only criticize what one doesn't believe to arrive at what one does believe without ever examining what one believes?

Which one is critical thinking:

A) how did we get here?
B) magic made us

Neither. They are both questions. Although the last one proves my point that you are only capable of critical theory arguments.

But if you want to know how we got here it is because the laws of nature which existed before space and time predestined beings that know and create would eventually arise given enough time and the right conditions.

How do you know that?

Through science but let’s try to stay on topic, ok?

Through science? WTH is that supposed to mean? The topic is "do atheists only trash religion, but never reevaluate their beliefs" (paraphrased). I don't believe in unicorns. I believe anyone who does is an idiot. Do you really think I should periodically reevaluate my disbelief in unicorns? Am I unreasonable to say people that do are idiots?

My belief is that rather than being a late outgrowth of the evolution of space and time mind has always existed and is the source or matrix of physical stuff such that beings that know and create would eventually arise. Not exactly the stuff of unicorns. But that’s not nearly as much fun for you to ridicule.

 

[BULLDOG]

Which one is critical thinking:

A) how did we get here?
B) magic made us

Neither. They are both questions. Although the last one proves my point that you are only capable of critical theory arguments.

But if you want to know how we got here it is because the laws of nature which existed before space and time predestined beings that know and create would eventually arise given enough time and the right conditions.

How do you know that?

Through science but let’s try to stay on topic, ok?

Through science? WTH is that supposed to mean? The topic is "do atheists only trash religion, but never reevaluate their beliefs" (paraphrased). I don't believe in unicorns. I believe anyone who does is an idiot. Do you really think I should periodically reevaluate my disbelief in unicorns? Am I unreasonable to say people that do are idiots?

Your only beliefs are criticisms of beliefs of others?

How does that not prove my point?

It seems you want to argue that you are justified in doing so.

The problem is that you aren’t criticizing their beliefs. You are criticizing your straw man construction of their beliefs.

That’s pretty silly if you ask me.

Don't really care what you might think. Again, reevaluating atheism requires looking at religious beliefs again, It shouldn't be surprising that those might be rejected again, especially since there is no new information to change the already considered belief. What are you wanting to hear? Seems that your panties will be in a knot with anything less than accepting your claims of God.

 

[ding]

So getting back to the OP it doesn’t seem like there is anyone who believes that only practicing critical theory is ethical.

Probably because it isn’t.