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

[BlackFlag]

@mods, my contribution to this thread is pointing out that the OP's claim that the current laws of the universe were established by an incomprehensible, magical being are based on ZERO evidence. The OP threatens to get you to ban me from the thread because he doesn't want to respond to that. Your call.

 

[buttercup]

I would say that everything coming into existence by pure chance, life coming from nonlife, intelligence coming from non-intelligence, and ordered information like DNA happening by dumb luck is about as “magical” as it gets.

I would not have enough faith to be an atheist, that’s for sure!

I appreciate that but I'd like to discuss the OP.

Can atheism ever be anything more than an attack on religion or a criticism of religion?

Oh, well that’s the only thing I wanted to say. I just thought blackflag’s comments were incredibly ironic. But I’ll let you guys get back to your discussion!

 

[BULLDOG]

I don't believe it is possible for atheism to ever be anything more than critical theory because there is no affirmative case for atheism. The only argument of atheism is to argue against religion and to criticize religion.

So my question is... Is it possible for atheism to ever be anything more than critical theory?

I don't even consider it that. It's just a lack of belief in a god.

But that lack of belief in God can only manifest itself in attacking and criticizing religion, right?

Of course not. There is no need to discuss religion at all. Non belief is non belief. If some religious nut engages you in a discussion, it's perfectly acceptable to explain what religious theories have been evaluated and found lacking, but the lack of belief doesn't require overt opposition to religious fanatics. It's just something fun to do.

 

[Lysistrata]

Will somebody please step back and study European history, from medieval to early modern? On another thread, the bimbos were whining about "heresy." There is no "one" Christian religion. If people choose not to believe in the Christian faith, this is their due.

In the past month, including yesterday. I saw the great Christian services at a cathedral I know and love to pray over the dead at both the internment of Mathew Shepard and the farewell to George H.W. Bush.

I do nor know how you connect with this.

 

[ding]

I don't believe it is possible for atheism to ever be anything more than critical theory because there is no affirmative case for atheism. The only argument of atheism is to argue against religion and to criticize religion.

So my question is... Is it possible for atheism to ever be anything more than critical theory?

I don't even consider it that. It's just a lack of belief in a god.

But that lack of belief in God can only manifest itself in attacking and criticizing religion, right?

Of course not. There is no need to discuss religion at all. Non belief is non belief. If some religious nut engages you in a discussion, it's perfectly acceptable to explain what religious theories have been evaluated and found lacking, but the lack of belief doesn't require overt opposition to religious fanatics. It's just something fun to do.

I’m pretty sure that Black Flag just disproved your assumption by his or her behavior.

 

[ding]

Will somebody please step back and study European history, from medieval to early modern? On another thread, the bimbos were whining about "heresy." There is no "one" Christian religion. If people choose not to believe in the Christian faith, this is their due.

In the past month, including yesterday. I saw the great Christian services at a cathedral I know and love to pray over the dead at both the internment of Mathew Shepard and the farewell to George H.W. Bush.

I do nor know how you connect with this.

And I couldn’t care less if they did practice religion I don’t believe they feel the same way.

 

[BULLDOG]

I don't believe it is possible for atheism to ever be anything more than critical theory because there is no affirmative case for atheism. The only argument of atheism is to argue against religion and to criticize religion.

So my question is... Is it possible for atheism to ever be anything more than critical theory?

I don't even consider it that. It's just a lack of belief in a god.

But that lack of belief in God can only manifest itself in attacking and criticizing religion, right?

Of course not. There is no need to discuss religion at all. Non belief is non belief. If some religious nut engages you in a discussion, it's perfectly acceptable to explain what religious theories have been evaluated and found lacking, but the lack of belief doesn't require overt opposition to religious fanatics. It's just something fun to do.

I’m pretty sure that Black Flag just disproved your assumption by his or her behavior.

How so?

 

[ding]

I don't believe it is possible for atheism to ever be anything more than critical theory because there is no affirmative case for atheism. The only argument of atheism is to argue against religion and to criticize religion.

So my question is... Is it possible for atheism to ever be anything more than critical theory?

I don't even consider it that. It's just a lack of belief in a god.

But that lack of belief in God can only manifest itself in attacking and criticizing religion, right?

Of course not. There is no need to discuss religion at all. Non belief is non belief. If some religious nut engages you in a discussion, it's perfectly acceptable to explain what religious theories have been evaluated and found lacking, but the lack of belief doesn't require overt opposition to religious fanatics. It's just something fun to do.

I’m pretty sure that Black Flag just disproved your assumption by his or her behavior.

How so?

Because all he could focus on was what he perceived as religious beliefs. Specifically criticizing religious beliefs.

 

[BULLDOG]

I don't even consider it that. It's just a lack of belief in a god.

But that lack of belief in God can only manifest itself in attacking and criticizing religion, right?

Of course not. There is no need to discuss religion at all. Non belief is non belief. If some religious nut engages you in a discussion, it's perfectly acceptable to explain what religious theories have been evaluated and found lacking, but the lack of belief doesn't require overt opposition to religious fanatics. It's just something fun to do.

I’m pretty sure that Black Flag just disproved your assumption by his or her behavior.

How so?

Because all he could focus on was what he perceived as religious beliefs. Specifically criticizing religious beliefs.

Since Atheism , by definition is lack of religious beliefs concerning a god, and reevaluation of atheism requires reconsidering religious claims, WTF did you expect him to focus on?

 

[ding]

But that lack of belief in God can only manifest itself in attacking and criticizing religion, right?

Of course not. There is no need to discuss religion at all. Non belief is non belief. If some religious nut engages you in a discussion, it's perfectly acceptable to explain what religious theories have been evaluated and found lacking, but the lack of belief doesn't require overt opposition to religious fanatics. It's just something fun to do.

I’m pretty sure that Black Flag just disproved your assumption by his or her behavior.

How so?

Because all he could focus on was what he perceived as religious beliefs. Specifically criticizing religious beliefs.

Since Atheism , by definition is lack of religious beliefs concerning a god, and reevaluation of atheism requires reconsidering religious claims, WTF did you expect him to focus on?

You tell me. It seems you are agreeing with me.

 

[ding]

But that lack of belief in God can only manifest itself in attacking and criticizing religion, right?

Of course not. There is no need to discuss religion at all. Non belief is non belief. If some religious nut engages you in a discussion, it's perfectly acceptable to explain what religious theories have been evaluated and found lacking, but the lack of belief doesn't require overt opposition to religious fanatics. It's just something fun to do.

I’m pretty sure that Black Flag just disproved your assumption by his or her behavior.

How so?

Because all he could focus on was what he perceived as religious beliefs. Specifically criticizing religious beliefs.

Since Atheism , by definition is lack of religious beliefs concerning a god, and reevaluation of atheism requires reconsidering religious claims, WTF did you expect him to focus on?

But you do have religious beliefs. You hate people who are religious and you do so with a religious fervor.

 

[ding]

I’m not really hearing anyone disagreeing with the OP.

 

[ding]

Of course there is one valid argument but you people aren’t the ones who can make it.

 

[BULLDOG]

Of course not. There is no need to discuss religion at all. Non belief is non belief. If some religious nut engages you in a discussion, it's perfectly acceptable to explain what religious theories have been evaluated and found lacking, but the lack of belief doesn't require overt opposition to religious fanatics. It's just something fun to do.

I’m pretty sure that Black Flag just disproved your assumption by his or her behavior.

How so?

Because all he could focus on was what he perceived as religious beliefs. Specifically criticizing religious beliefs.

Since Atheism , by definition is lack of religious beliefs concerning a god, and reevaluation of atheism requires reconsidering religious claims, WTF did you expect him to focus on?

But you do have religious beliefs. You hate people who are religious and you do so with a religious fervor.

Bullshit, and completely off subject. If you want to discuss that accusation, start a thread on that subject.

 

[ding]

I’m pretty sure that Black Flag just disproved your assumption by his or her behavior.

How so?

Because all he could focus on was what he perceived as religious beliefs. Specifically criticizing religious beliefs.

Since Atheism , by definition is lack of religious beliefs concerning a god, and reevaluation of atheism requires reconsidering religious claims, WTF did you expect him to focus on?

But you do have religious beliefs. You hate people who are religious and you do so with a religious fervor.

Bullshit, and completely off subject. If you want to discuss that accusation, start a thread on that subject.

Your beliefs are against religion that makes them religious beliefs. You come to discuss them in a religious forum. That should be your first clue.

Lastly your criticism of religion is what makes it relevant to the OP.

Your behaviors are no different than one rival religion towards another.

 

[BULLDOG]

How so?

Because all he could focus on was what he perceived as religious beliefs. Specifically criticizing religious beliefs.

Since Atheism , by definition is lack of religious beliefs concerning a god, and reevaluation of atheism requires reconsidering religious claims, WTF did you expect him to focus on?

But you do have religious beliefs. You hate people who are religious and you do so with a religious fervor.

Bullshit, and completely off subject. If you want to discuss that accusation, start a thread on that subject.

Your beliefs are against religion that makes them religious beliefs. You come to discuss them in a religious forum. That should be your first clue.

Lastly your criticism of religion is what makes it relevant to the OP.

Your behaviors are no different than one rival religion towards another.

Religion and atheism aren't the same thing.

 

[Karl Rand]

I don't believe it is possible for atheism to ever be anything more than critical theory because there is no affirmative case for atheism. The only argument of atheism is to argue against religion and to criticize religion.

So my question is... Is it possible for atheism to ever be anything more than critical theory?

Only inasmuch as gravity is considered to be anything more than critical theory against other magical explanations for why things don't float

So you are agreeing with me that there is no affirmative case for atheism.

The theory of gravity can explain why some thing's float and others don't, but it can't prove that the real reason isn't that magical super-beings make it so

The reason it is so is because of the laws of nature which existed before space and time make it so. We live in a logical universe governed by rules where every cause has an effect which means everything happens for a reason and has a purpose.

Quantum physics doesn’t appear to agree. There’s also the problem of the body of knowledge of ‘how the universe is governed by rules' is as yet incomplete with nothing like a proof it well ever be complete. No reason to cease trying to advance human knowledge but also no reason to claim we know the reason and purpose of everything or claim that there is one.
The religious on the other hand can cleave to the comforting delusion they know the reason for everything ‘because God makes it so’.

 

[ding]

Because all he could focus on was what he perceived as religious beliefs. Specifically criticizing religious beliefs.

Since Atheism , by definition is lack of religious beliefs concerning a god, and reevaluation of atheism requires reconsidering religious claims, WTF did you expect him to focus on?

But you do have religious beliefs. You hate people who are religious and you do so with a religious fervor.

Bullshit, and completely off subject. If you want to discuss that accusation, start a thread on that subject.

Your beliefs are against religion that makes them religious beliefs. You come to discuss them in a religious forum. That should be your first clue.

Lastly your criticism of religion is what makes it relevant to the OP.

Your behaviors are no different than one rival religion towards another.

Religion and atheism aren't the same thing.

We will agree to disagree. But let’s try to get back on topic.

 

[ding]

I don't believe it is possible for atheism to ever be anything more than critical theory because there is no affirmative case for atheism. The only argument of atheism is to argue against religion and to criticize religion.

So my question is... Is it possible for atheism to ever be anything more than critical theory?

Only inasmuch as gravity is considered to be anything more than critical theory against other magical explanations for why things don't float

So you are agreeing with me that there is no affirmative case for atheism.

The theory of gravity can explain why some thing's float and others don't, but it can't prove that the real reason isn't that magical super-beings make it so

The reason it is so is because of the laws of nature which existed before space and time make it so. We live in a logical universe governed by rules where every cause has an effect which means everything happens for a reason and has a purpose.

Quantum physics doesn’t appear to agree. There’s also the problem of the body of knowledge of ‘how the universe is governed by rules' is as yet incomplete with nothing like a proof it well ever be complete. No reason to cease trying to advance human knowledge but also no reason to claim we know the reason and purpose of everything or claim that there is one.
The religious on the other hand can cleave to the comforting delusion they know the reason for everything ‘because God makes it so’.

Try to stay on topic Karl.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

I don't believe it is possible for atheism to ever be anything more than critical theory because there is no affirmative case for atheism. The only argument of atheism is to argue against religion and to criticize religion.

So my question is... Is it possible for atheism to ever be anything more than critical theory?

Atheism isn’t a “critical” theory, whatever it is you mean by that; only because atheism isn’t a theory. You’re right in saying that there is no affirmative case for atheism.

Atheism is a rejection of the affirmative case for a god or gods. It’s the null hypothesis. Atheism is just scepticism of the claims made for a god or gods. It’s just being unconvinced. It’s simply not having a belief.

That’s it - nothing more.

It isn’t materialism, though many atheists do subscribe to materialism. It isn’t philosophical naturalism, though many atheists do subscribe to that as well. It isn’t what believers call “scientism”, though some atheists do think the scientific method is the best way to ascertain truth - lower case t.

If you want to know what an atheist believes or doesn’t, beyond whether or not a god or gods exist, you have to ask them.

Some are communists while others wholeheartedly believe in laissez-faire capitalism. Some believe in ghosts, psychic powers, chakras, and telepathy. Some think anything explained using the supernatural as the explanation is baseless superstition and lazy thinking. Some hate LGBTQ people and are racists, others want to promote tolerance. Some are hardcore traditional conservatives, others are freewheeling liberals. Some want an authoritarian government while others are anarchists. Some want to rid the world of religion while others respect and admire religion.

To try to categorize atheists and atheism beyond the god question is to make a bold but foolhardy assumption. I suggest you don’t as you will probably be wrong in that assumption.