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

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?

No? Where would you get that idea?
 
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.

Atheism doesn't have anything to say about trolling. It's just a lack of theistic belief.
 
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.
Yes, atheism isn’t critical theory. The practice of atheism will never go beyond the practice of critical theory.

It seems as though you believe you’ve scored some point against atheism using the term “critical theory”, but I’m afraid you haven’t. Atheism isn’t a practice, it’s a rejection of a practice.

I have to agree with you that there is no affirmative case for atheism. The point of your OP is that atheism has no positive argument for itself and all arguments for it are actually critiques of another position. That is true because one cannot prove a negative.

But that fact isn’t a mark against atheism anymore than it is against any other belief. For example, I don’t believe in big foot. Does that mean I am in a weaker position than one who does believe in big foot? I am not a practitioner of Islam - I don’t believe in Allah or the claims made by Muslims or their prophet Muhammed. Does that work against me in someway? No.

Until the claims of a religion or belief convince me of the veracity of those claims, I remain unconvinced. Simple as that.
 
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?
There is no “theory of atheism”

We have just heard the bizarre claims of religion and don’t be,ieve them

What's "bizzare" is the ridiculous belief that everything came from nothing.

I agree: that is a bizarre belief. No scientific theory claims everything came from nothing. I think you don’t know what each atheist believes when it come to the question “Why is there something rather than nothing?”. So I assume you are referring to scientific claims as to the origins of the Universe. If so, I suggest you read more about those claims because you don’t know what they are if you think any scientific theory claims everything came nothing. Right now the scientific consensus is: Nobody knows.
 
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?
There is no “theory of atheism”

We have just heard the bizarre claims of religion and don’t be,ieve them

What's "bizzare" is the ridiculous belief that everything came from nothing.
OK

Where did God come from?
 
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.

There is no affirmative case for the god model either

Both are naught but unproven theories
 
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?
There is no “theory of atheism”

We have just heard the bizarre claims of religion and don’t be,ieve them

What's "bizzare" is the ridiculous belief that everything came from nothing.

I agree: that is a bizarre belief. No scientific theory claims everything came from nothing. I think you don’t know what each atheist believes when it come to the question “Why is there something rather than nothing?”. So I assume you are referring to scientific claims as to the origins of the Universe. If so, I suggest you read more about those claims because you don’t know what they are if you think any scientific theory claims everything came nothing. Right now the scientific consensus is: Nobody knows.

As an atheist......I don’t need to know

I have heard religious theories based on Magic my whole life.....I just don’t believe them
 
After many years of school indoctrination, it is easy to forget that, logically speaking, the existence of "god" is obvious and undeniable. As you look around in the world of nature, both geological and biological, the is no conceivable explanation for the variety and efficacy of nature other than that it was planned and executed by an infinitely intelligent and infinitely powerful force.

This is why the early work on "evolution" was so stunning. While highly unlikely, it was at least a near-tenable explanation for Nature. It only works if you essentially believe in Unicorns (spontaneous generation of life) and assume an infinite time for it to work its magic, but with a few notable exceptions it does work as an explanation.

Unfortunately, it has taken on most of the characteristics of a "religion," as its adherents - most of whom are scientific illiterates - cling to it with all the fervor of primitives worshipping the rain god on some desolate island.

The difference between Science and Religion is that when Science encounters something that it cannot explain, it questions the prior hypothesis and either abandons it or adapts it to the new reality. When Religion encounters something it cannot explain, it merely denies the existence of the inconvenient fact.

Understand?
 
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 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?
Umm...what? Atheism is based on observable evidence.

You know, like we know that water is wet?
 
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
“... which means everything happens for a reason and has a purpose.”
Actually it doesn’t “mean” that. You merely posit such, because you believe it to be true...
 
Why are Christians compelled to attack atheists?

Just because we find your beliefs unlikely? I don’t see any threads coming from atheists
 
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

Well then, what makes gravity so?

What particles make gravity work?
 
I believe that the scientists of the future will be able to create an artificial Lord God with the properties described in the scriptures.
 
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

Well then, what makes gravity so?

What particles make gravity work?
Things fall to earth because God wants them to
 
Religion and atheism aren't the same thing.
Maybe not but they have one thing in common, they cannot prove their central claim.
However, most of our species cannot abide uncertainty so are willing to go to no end of irrational, uprovable theorising in order not to panic.

If I tell you I don't believe in a god, that is proof. It's not a theory. I am the unimpeachable authority on whether I believe or don't believe anything, just as you are the unimpeachable authority on whether you believe. The why might be open to discussion, but never the if.
 
I believe that the scientists of the future will be able to create an artificial Lord God with the properties described in the scriptures.
I think we'll eventually come to understand gods as very real things, but not supernatural.
 
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.

If you're using "critical theory" in the same way you are in your other thread (e.g. in relation to the Frankfurt School) then I think this statement is a non-sequitur, even if it were granted that there is no affirmative case for atheism. Atheism has basically nothing to do with critical theory, and critical theory is not primarily about epistemology. It seems like you just want to relate atheism to critical theory because you dislike both, or because you want to associate atheism to Marxism somehow, but it doesn't make sense.

As far as the claim that there is no affirmative case for atheism, I'm not sure what you mean by "affirmative", but I can tell you my view:

I think it makes sense to conceptualize "atheism" mostly as a response to the "theism" of monotheistic religion, especially of the Abrahamic variety. That is, the concept of God that most atheists claim does not exist is that concept of God found in those religions. A person might be agnostic or ambivalent towards other concepts of God, i.e. something like Spinoza's concept, or Zeus, but in practice western atheism is mostly atheism with regard to something like the Christian God. Using that definition, I think there is a strong abductive argument that such a God does not exist.
 
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.

If you're using "critical theory" in the same way you are in your other thread (e.g. in relation to the Frankfurt School) then I think this statement is a non-sequitur, even if it were granted that there is no affirmative case for atheism. Atheism has basically nothing to do with critical theory, and critical theory is not primarily about epistemology. It seems like you just want to relate atheism to critical theory because you dislike both, or because you want to associate atheism to Marxism somehow, but it doesn't make sense.

As far as the claim that there is no affirmative case for atheism, I'm not sure what you mean by "affirmative", but I can tell you my view:

I think it makes sense to conceptualize "atheism" mostly as a response to the "theism" of monotheistic religion, especially of the Abrahamic variety. That is, the concept of God that most atheists claim does not exist is that concept of God found in those religions. A person might be agnostic or ambivalent towards other concepts of God, i.e. something like Spinoza's concept, or Zeus, but in practice western atheism is mostly atheism with regard to something like the Christian God. Using that definition, I think there is a strong abductive argument that such a God does not exist.
It goes beyond a Christian God
It applies to all Gods

It just doesn’t make sense
 
If God is a creator......why did he stop?
Why isn’t he creating things every day?
 

Forum List

Back
Top