Is it ethical to only practice critical theory?

[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?

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.

Fuck time and space. I've heard all that crap hundreds of times. It doesn't prove God.

 

[ding]

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.

You are so caught up in atheism that you didn’t even realize the OP never mentioned atheism.

 

[ding]

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.

Fuck time and space. I've heard all that crap hundreds of times. It doesn't prove God.

Would you like to actually discuss the OP, Don Quixote?

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

You are so caught up in atheism that you didn’t even realize the OP never mentioned atheism.

Are you trying to claim the conflict between atheism and religion wasn't the purpose of this thread? If not, then explain what specifically you were focusing on..

 

[ding]

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.

You are so caught up in atheism that you didn’t even realize the OP never mentioned atheism.

Are you trying to claim the conflict between atheism and religion wasn't the purpose of this thread? If not, then explain what specifically you were focusing on..

Read the OP. Answer the OP. No need to bring religion into an ethical discussion. Unless of course you can’t control your emotions.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

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?

Why would ethics have anything to do with if one rejects the beliefs in others in order to define their own?

It would certainly be a strange and improbable, if not impossible, way to come to one’s own beliefs but I don’t see how that would fall under the scope of ethics, specifically being unethical.

You do know what ethics are, right?

 

[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?

Why would ethics have anything to do with if one rejects the beliefs in others in order to define their own?

It would certainly be a strange and improbable, if not impossible, way to come to one’s own beliefs but I don’t see how that would fall under the scope of ethics, specifically being unethical.

You do know what ethics are, right?

It isn’t ethical because it is by nature disingenuous to argue what something is by what it isn’t.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

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?

Why would ethics have anything to do with if one rejects the beliefs in others in order to define their own?

It would certainly be a strange and improbable, if not impossible, way to come to one’s own beliefs but I don’t see how that would fall under the scope of ethics, specifically being unethical.

You do know what ethics are, right?

It isn’t ethical because it is by nature disingenuous to argue what something is by what it isn’t.

That isn’t what atheism does. It doesn’t argue for itself, it’s simply being unconvinced of religion and it’s claims. I am an atheist because I am not convinced God exists. All the claims for the existence of God or gods I’ve encountered have yet to convince me.

That is neither to argue for atheism by arguing what it isn’t, nor arguing for atheism for what religion isn’t. So it isn’t disingenuous, nor would it be unethical.
I don’t think any Christian apologist, like William Lane Craig, or Christian philosopher, like Alvin Plantinga, would make such a claim either.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

One should be critical of all theories as they are not proven as yet.

The god theory has not been proven
The no god theory has not been proven.

 

[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?

Why would ethics have anything to do with if one rejects the beliefs in others in order to define their own?

It would certainly be a strange and improbable, if not impossible, way to come to one’s own beliefs but I don’t see how that would fall under the scope of ethics, specifically being unethical.

You do know what ethics are, right?

It isn’t ethical because it is by nature disingenuous to argue what something is by what it isn’t.

That isn’t what atheism does. It doesn’t argue for itself, it’s simply being unconvinced of religion and it’s claims. I am an atheist because I am not convinced God exists. All the claims for the existence of God or gods I’ve encountered have yet to convince me.

That is neither to argue for atheism by arguing what it isn’t, nor arguing for atheism for what religion isn’t. So it isn’t disingenuous, nor would it be unethical.
I don’t think any Christian apologist, like William Lane Craig, or Christian philosopher, like Alvin Plantinga, would make such a claim either.

That is exactly what militant atheists do.

 

[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.

One should be critical of all theories as they are not proven as yet.

The god theory has not been proven
The no god theory has not been proven.

No. One should test theories.

 

[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

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.

One should be critical of all theories as they are not proven as yet.

The god theory has not been proven
The no god theory has not been proven.

No. One should test theories.

You accidentally put a period there after “no”

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

One should be critical of all theories as they are not proven as yet.

The god theory has not been proven
The no god theory has not been proven.

No. One should test theories.

Testing is being critical.

IOW you just don't believe a theory is fact

 

[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.

One should be critical of all theories as they are not proven as yet.

The god theory has not been proven
The no god theory has not been proven.

No. One should test theories.

Testing is being critical.

IOW you just don't believe a theory is fact

Look at the definition of both words.

 

[anynameyouwish]

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?

If YOU were capable of critical thinking you would KNOW that your accusation;

"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."


describes modern conservatism perfectly.


Do you NOT mindlessly criticize atheism, liberalism, progressivism, non-christian religions, gays, trans, interracial marriage, pot smoker and everyone else you disagree with?


or...

pot kettle black

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

One should be critical of all theories as they are not proven as yet.

The god theory has not been proven
The no god theory has not been proven.

No. One should test theories.

Testing is being critical.

IOW you just don't believe a theory is fact

Look at the definition of both words.

Don't need to

 

[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?

If YOU were capable of critical thinking you would KNOW that your accusation;

"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."


describes modern conservatism perfectly.


Do you NOT mindlessly criticize atheism, liberalism, progressivism, non-christian religions, gays, trans, interracial marriage, pot smoker and everyone else you disagree with?


or...

pot kettle black

The OP never mentioned atheism. Did you just self identify?

 

[ding]

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.

One should be critical of all theories as they are not proven as yet.

The god theory has not been proven
The no god theory has not been proven.

No. One should test theories.

Testing is being critical.

IOW you just don't believe a theory is fact

Look at the definition of both words.

Don't need to

Your call.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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?

If YOU were capable of critical thinking you would KNOW that your accusation;

"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."


describes modern conservatism perfectly.


Do you NOT mindlessly criticize atheism, liberalism, progressivism, non-christian religions, gays, trans, interracial marriage, pot smoker and everyone else you disagree with?


or...

pot kettle black

The OP never mentioned atheism. Did you just self identify?

you mentioned it in another thread

 

[Skull Pilot]

One should be critical of all theories as they are not proven as yet.

The god theory has not been proven
The no god theory has not been proven.

No. One should test theories.

Testing is being critical.

IOW you just don't believe a theory is fact

Look at the definition of both words.

Don't need to

Your call.

Maybe you should look it up

FYI there are nuances to a definition and a word ca mean more than one thing.