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

[Hollie]

What you're doing is citing a fallacy of hasty generalization. Just because leprechauns, unicorns, Thor, etc. does not exist physically doesn't mean that the Christian God does not exist. It's one of the biggest mistakes atheist science makes. It treats creation science as a religion. How God created the world is science. How Jesus saved the world is religion.

I believe the underlying issue you are missing is that the thread is not addressing atheism v. theism directly, (and not nebulous descriptions of atheism, agnosticism and the “levels” of each), but is discussing philosophy. It is pretty self-explanatory. Your gods and other gods by definition have the attribute of being incomprehensible. If something incomprehensible is responsible for all of existence, then ultimately, the universe is made incomprehensible at its source. I disagree that the universe is ultimately incomprehensible. In time, I believe that these mysteries will be plumbed.

I think what you would incorrectly define as Atheism is more a function of your own insecurities and biases. If a reasonable assessment that gods, leprechauns and pixies do not exist troubles you so, why not offer something (other than “because I say so”), to prove they do? Reason operates on trust of what is; when “what is” changes, then so does the acceptance of what “what is” was. Empirically we see this occur over and over, under the discipline we call rational science.

Atheism is a religion. It's based on "faith" that there is no God nor gods.

Incorrect. Atheism is not a belief system. Atheism is not a moral system or philosophy. Ultimately, there’s really nothing within Atheism that is sought after as proof. Atheism isn't a “belief system, it's a rejection of the proffered unsupported religions. All of atheism tends to be a critique of theist assertions. Even the Big Bang doesn't address god issues. Maybe god(s) is/are behind the Big Bang, who knows? Atheism is really a philosophical rejection of the assertions of theism as undemonstrated and fallacious, nothing more.

The Bible explains how God created the world in 6 days. You are ignorant of what the Bible says.

Actually, it is you who is ignorant of the bibles. The biblical creation tale is a contradictory mess. Have you ever read the Genesis fable? I'll be glad to step through it for you.

 

[james bond]

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?

LOL- not this again!
As an atheist I can criticize any religion of course- but I don't need to argue against religion to be an Atheist.

I just don't believe in any of your fairy tales- nothing more complicated than that. I have no grand critical theory- I just don't believe in the tales you tell each other.

Hell you 'religionists' can't even agree on a common theme- you argue between yourself about which is the true god or gods- without any critical evidence that any gods ever existed.

I don't have to argue against religion to just not believe in leprechauns or unicorns or Thor or Coyote or God.

What you're doing is citing a fallacy of hasty generalization. Just because leprechauns, unicorns, Thor, etc. does not exist physically doesn't mean that the Christian God does not exist. It's one of the biggest mistakes atheist science makes. s.

How do you know that leprechauns, unicorns and Thor don't exist?

There is no 'hasty generalization' on my part- what you are doing is buying into the Christian mythologists fallacy- that because more people believe in your fairy than people believe in leprechauns that your fairy tales are somehow 'real' and everyone else is wrong.

As I said before- I don't have to argue against religion to just not believe in leprechauns, unicorns, Thor, Coyote, or God.

If you don't know, then you'll have to google. Even if they do not physically exist, they exist in the mind as many know what you are referring to.

What you don't understand is you are lumping imaginary things with real such as God. God is spiritual and not physical. To be correct, you should say "I don't have to argue against religion to just not believe in leprechauns, unicorns, Thor, Coyote, or Evolution. Evolution, like atheism, is a religion. It's based on faith for its worldview. Usually, it is associated with atheism and that God does not exist. Evolution does not need a creator as a cause. Thus, it's faith-based appeal to those who do not believe.

I can show you real science in action though. Humans from monkeys is macroevolution. However, we do not see any monkeys that are bipedal today. It does not happen. This is observable, testable and falsifiable. Thus, humans from monkeys do not happen. Even tailed to tailless monkeys do not happen. Even chimps from gorillas do not happen. This is how a common ancestor begat another creature. You even violate your uniformitarian thinking that what happens in the present is what happened in the past. You believe it happened in the past millions of years ago when no humans were around. That's faith-based beliefs you call science. It's religion.

I have seen no evidence of any god creating anything. And "Creation Science" is as bogus as "Creation Medicine"

Then you missed Stephen Hawking saying the universe and everything in it including us is here, but it shouldn't be here. He can't explain the cause.

 

[james bond]

I believe the underlying issue you are missing is that the thread is not addressing atheism v. theism directly, (and not nebulous descriptions of atheism, agnosticism and the “levels” of each), but is discussing philosophy. It is pretty self-explanatory. Your gods and other gods by definition have the attribute of being incomprehensible. If something incomprehensible is responsible for all of existence, then ultimately, the universe is made incomprehensible at its source. I disagree that the universe is ultimately incomprehensible. In time, I believe that these mysteries will be plumbed.

I think what you would incorrectly define as Atheism is more a function of your own insecurities and biases. If a reasonable assessment that gods, leprechauns and pixies do not exist troubles you so, why not offer something (other than “because I say so”), to prove they do? Reason operates on trust of what is; when “what is” changes, then so does the acceptance of what “what is” was. Empirically we see this occur over and over, under the discipline we call rational science.

Syriusly was lumping imaginary with God when he has no evidence for God being imaginary. You're going into philosophy which doesn't sound like it addresses the topic. I may be wrong though. Atheism is a religion just like Buddhism is a religion. I didn't agree it was critical theory. Maybe a sect believes that?

I wasn't referring to theism, but to Christianity. I think most people understand theism is broader in scope and that God is part of nature and does not get into the religious aspects. It usually stays spiritual and/or metaphysical.

Actually, it is you who is ignorant of the bibles. The biblical creation tale is a contradictory mess. Have you ever read the Genesis fable? I'll be glad to step through it for you.

Yes, I have. There are no contradictions in the Bible and Genesis. Do you believe atheism is critical theory and this is one of its criticisms?

 

[percysunshine]

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?

Yes.

Atheism is a religion. It is sort of self evident. A belief which posits something does not exist is the same as a belief which posits the same thing does exist.

 

[edthecynic]

Yes.

Atheism is a religion. It is sort of self evident.

So then should Atheism get all the special tax breaks religions get?????

 

[Syriusly]

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?

LOL- not this again!
As an atheist I can criticize any religion of course- but I don't need to argue against religion to be an Atheist.

I just don't believe in any of your fairy tales- nothing more complicated than that. I have no grand critical theory- I just don't believe in the tales you tell each other.

Hell you 'religionists' can't even agree on a common theme- you argue between yourself about which is the true god or gods- without any critical evidence that any gods ever existed.

I don't have to argue against religion to just not believe in leprechauns or unicorns or Thor or Coyote or God.

What you're doing is citing a fallacy of hasty generalization. Just because leprechauns, unicorns, Thor, etc. does not exist physically doesn't mean that the Christian God does not exist. It's one of the biggest mistakes atheist science makes. s.

How do you know that leprechauns, unicorns and Thor don't exist?

There is no 'hasty generalization' on my part- what you are doing is buying into the Christian mythologists fallacy- that because more people believe in your fairy than people believe in leprechauns that your fairy tales are somehow 'real' and everyone else is wrong.

As I said before- I don't have to argue against religion to just not believe in leprechauns, unicorns, Thor, Coyote, or God.

If you don't know, then you'll have to google. Even if they do not physically exist, they exist in the mind as many know what you are referring to.

What you don't understand is you are lumping imaginary things with real such as God..

What you don't understand is that leprechauns are as real as God and Santa Claus.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

Yes.

Atheism is a religion. It is sort of self evident. A belief which posits something does not exist is the same as a belief which posits the same thing does exist.

So you think that not believing in Santa Claus is a religion?

How very fascinating.

LOL

 

[Syriusly]

I believe the underlying issue you are missing is that the thread is not addressing atheism v. theism directly, (and not nebulous descriptions of atheism, agnosticism and the “levels” of each), but is discussing philosophy. It is pretty self-explanatory. Your gods and other gods by definition have the attribute of being incomprehensible. If something incomprehensible is responsible for all of existence, then ultimately, the universe is made incomprehensible at its source. I disagree that the universe is ultimately incomprehensible. In time, I believe that these mysteries will be plumbed.

I think what you would incorrectly define as Atheism is more a function of your own insecurities and biases. If a reasonable assessment that gods, leprechauns and pixies do not exist troubles you so, why not offer something (other than “because I say so”), to prove they do? Reason operates on trust of what is; when “what is” changes, then so does the acceptance of what “what is” was. Empirically we see this occur over and over, under the discipline we call rational science.

Syriusly was lumping imaginary with God when he has no evidence for God being imaginary.

I have no evidence that God is imaginary- any more than I have evidence that leprechauns are imaginary- but what I don't have is any evidence of God, unicorns, or leprechauns.

I have people like you telling me gods exist, and people like you telling me that leprechauns exi.

 

[Karl Rand]

So you think that not believing in Santa Claus is a religion?
How very fascinating.

What I find fascinating is why the idea of throwing gays off rooftops being a good idea keeps appearing on your posts. Is this something you actually believe in?

 

[Syriusly]

I believe the underlying issue you are missing is that the thread is not addressing atheism v. theism directly, (and not nebulous descriptions of atheism, agnosticism and the “levels” of each), but is discussing philosophy. It is pretty self-explanatory. Your gods and other gods by definition have the attribute of being incomprehensible. If something incomprehensible is responsible for all of existence, then ultimately, the universe is made incomprehensible at its source. I disagree that the universe is ultimately incomprehensible. In time, I believe that these mysteries will be plumbed.

I think what you would incorrectly define as Atheism is more a function of your own insecurities and biases. If a reasonable assessment that gods, leprechauns and pixies do not exist troubles you so, why not offer something (other than “because I say so”), to prove they do? Reason operates on trust of what is; when “what is” changes, then so does the acceptance of what “what is” was. Empirically we see this occur over and over, under the discipline we call rational science.

Syriusly was lumping imaginary with God when he has no evidence for God being imaginary. You're going into philosophy which doesn't sound like it addresses the topic. I may be wrong though. Atheism is a religion just like Buddhism is a religion. I didn't agree it was critical theory. Maybe a sect believes that?

I wasn't referring to theism, but to Christianity. I think most people understand theism is broader in scope and that God is part of nature and does not get into the religious aspects. It usually stays spiritual and/or metaphysical.

Actually, it is you who is ignorant of the bibles. The biblical creation tale is a contradictory mess. Have you ever read the Genesis fable? I'll be glad to step through it for you.

Yes, I have. There are no contradictions in the Bible and Genesis.

Yeah we have been down this road before- James is full of rationalizations on how the literal contradictions in Genesis aren't really contradictions.

James is a good Christian- his faith allows him to bend the facts to fit his fairy tales.

 

[Syriusly]

[QU

I have seen no evidence of any god creating anything. And "Creation Science" is as bogus as "Creation Medicine"

Then you missed Stephen Hawking saying the universe and everything in it including us is here, but it shouldn't be here. He can't explain the cause.

And?

Doesn't make 'Creation Science'- or more accurately Christian Evangelical pseudo- science any less bogus than the science of alchemy.

 

[Syriusly]

So you think that not believing in Santa Claus is a religion?
How very fascinating.

What I find fascinating is why the idea of throwing gays off rooftops being a good idea keeps appearing on your posts. Is this something you actually believe in?

That is one of three quotes I have in my signature from one of our more repulsive posters here at USMB- and I present them to remind everyone of the vile bigotry of Tipsy.
The other two are that she thinks that no black man can ever be as wonderful as Christopher Columbus- the slaver and torturer, and that the lesbians killing their kids is just the best way it could have ended for their kids.

These are not my opinions- I share them to remind them of Tipsy's opinions.

 

[Karl Rand]

Yeah we have been down this road before- James is full of rationalizations on how the literal contradictions in Genesis aren't really contradictions.

James is a good Christian- his faith allows him to bend the facts to fit his fairy tales.

In fact there’s an entire very ancient ‘academic’ discipline devoted to making sense of the the senselessness of scripture, Biblical Apologetics is it’s pretentious name and no greater body of gobbledegook exists outside of modern French so called philosophy.

Now do tell me why you think throwing gays off buildings is a good idea.

 

[percysunshine]

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?

Yes.

Atheism is a religion. It is sort of self evident. A belief which posits something does not exist is the same as a belief which posits the same thing does exist.

So you think that not believing in Santa Claus is a religion?

How very fascinating.

LOL

Please tell us you were trying to be funny instead of trying to be intelligent.

 

[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?

Yes.

Atheism is a religion. It is sort of self evident. A belief which posits something does not exist is the same as a belief which posits the same thing does exist.

So you think that not believing in Santa Claus is a religion?

How very fascinating.

LOL

Please tell us you were trying to be funny instead of trying to be intelligent.

Here’s something from that heretic text, THE GNOSTIC GOSPELS In the Secret Book of James 4:22 we are told “Be filled with Spirit but lack in Reason, for reason is of the soul. It is the soul.

 

[Syriusly]

Yeah we have been down this road before- James is full of rationalizations on how the literal contradictions in Genesis aren't really contradictions.

James is a good Christian- his faith allows him to bend the facts to fit his fairy tales.

In fact there’s an entire very ancient ‘academic’ discipline devoted to making sense of the the senselessness of scripture, Biblical Apologetics is it’s pretentious name and no greater body of gobbledegook exists outside of modern French so called philosophy.

Now do tell me why you think throwing gays off buildings is a good idea.

I think I already explained I am quoting the vile Tipsycat- as noted in my signature.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

Yes.

Atheism is a religion. It is sort of self evident. A belief which posits something does not exist is the same as a belief which posits the same thing does exist.

So you think that not believing in Santa Claus is a religion?

How very fascinating.

LOL

Please tell us you were trying to be funny instead of trying to be intelligent.

That is funny- I just as easily could have asked that of your post.

If Atheism is a religion because it is a belief that something does not exist and therefore is the same as a belief that something does exist- then by that very same logic not believing in Santa Claus is a religion.

But that requires you to use the same logic on everything that people don't believe in.

Are you up for that?

 

[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?

No it is not. If god never shows up and no evidence is given you’ll still believe god exists.

To know there is no god you need to be a god yourself.

And god isn’t even a theory. Not a scientific one. What is a critical theory?

Atheists don’t know and theists only have faith because they don’t know either

I have all the evidence I need. It is all around me and in me.

That's wonderful......for you.

Aren't you the guy who hates himself?

Sometimes. So what?

 

[ding]

I doubt you did. You didn’t even know when the universe had zero entropy.

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann’s solutions to Einstein’s field equations, SLoT, FLoT, quantum mechanics and inflation theory.

Sorry to disappoint you. I have a degree in Secondary Ed/Comprehensive Sciences.

And did not know the universe was perfectly ordered before it began to expand and cool, right?

What is really, really amusing is that both religion and atheism existed before modern science.

You don't need to know about red shift to believe in your tales about a fairy in the sky who controls everything.

You don't need to know about red shift to not believe about a fairy in the sky.

But what we don't know is what your obsession with atheists is all about.
What is it about atheists that intrude into your religion fantasy world?

That they seek to subordinate religion.

You are free to pursue pleasure, fame, fortune, and power but the reality is that none of those things will satisfy you because you were made for more.

The fact that atheists believe in the middle ground is proof of that. They are literally repulsed by the logical conclusion of materialism because they were made for more.

When have I tried to 'subordinate religion'?

What 'middle ground' do I believe in?

Where is the evidence that I am 'literally repulsed by the logical conclusion of materialism'- whtever the hell that means?

Maybe if you devoted more time to your God or Gods- rather than obsessing about what others don't believe in- you might find some sort of personal enlightenment.

When haven’t you?

 

[ding]

What you do not understand is the cause of cause and effect. ToE has no cause.

The Bible explains how God created the world in 6 days. You are ignorant of what the Bible says.

The Theory of Evolution doesn't concern itself with what created the material world. This is the fallacy that you science deniers keep mistaking. We don't need to know where the headwaters of a river are in order to see that there is indeed a river flowing past us.

The Bible has a wonderful myth about how the world was created. Other religions have other creation myths. None of them are supported by science.

The Theory of Evolution doesn't concern itself with what created the material world. This is the fallacy that you science deniers keep mistaking. We don't need to know where the headwaters of a river are in order to see that there is indeed a river flowing past us.

The Bible has a wonderful myth about how the world was created. Other religions have other creation myths. None of them are supported by science

Do you believe that everything was created from the material world?