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

[Mindful]

So you believe being a materialist is an insult?

I haven't seen anyone claim that being called a materialist is an insult.

But saying someone's beliefs are a "concocted story" is certainly an insult.

Even if they are?

More insults? I assure that they are not. Now, the insults don't do any harm to me. But let's not claim they don't exist.

Only one person actually knows whether my beleifs are what I claim they are. And that is me. Nothing I have said, from beginning to end, has changed or contradicted other comments I have made. So there is no real evidence that I concocted anything. The only reason you claim I have is because I am an atheist who is not a materialist.

There’s no such thing. They don’t exist.

There is no such thing as gods. They don't exist.

Sometimes I felt they were frowning down at me from the top of the mountain, when I was living in Cyprus, during early morning swims.

 

[Syriusly]

I haven't seen anyone claim that being called a materialist is an insult.

But saying someone's beliefs are a "concocted story" is certainly an insult.

Even if they are?

More insults? I assure that they are not. Now, the insults don't do any harm to me. But let's not claim they don't exist.

Only one person actually knows whether my beleifs are what I claim they are. And that is me. Nothing I have said, from beginning to end, has changed or contradicted other comments I have made. So there is no real evidence that I concocted anything. The only reason you claim I have is because I am an atheist who is not a materialist.

There’s no such thing. They don’t exist.

There is no such thing as gods. They don't exist.

Sometimes I felt they were frowning down at me from the top of the mountain, when I was living in Cyprus, during early morning swims.

I actually get what you mean.

I have had some experiences that I would call potential transcendental- but fleeting- especially in the desert but once on the water. I can understand from those experiences why there are people who have faith in the unseen and unproven.

 

[WinterBorn]

According to whom?

Logic.

I disagree. I believe there are incorporeal things that are not god. Therefore, believing in the incorporeal does not mean I am not an atheist (which is defined as someone who does not believe in god).

You are still arguing it.

Why don’t you create a thread so you can fully explain it?

After all the pages you have spent denigrating what I believe, I see no reason to start another thread. Plus, there are others in these last pages who have joined in.

You haven’t seen me denigrate you yet. You are the only atheist I know who believes in a lifeforce.

You keep referring to "lifeforce". Interesting how you ignore what you dislike and latch on to what suits you.

If I am the only atheist you know that you are aware of that believes in the incorporeal, so be it. How many you know does not change my beliefs.

 

[Mindful]

Even if they are?

More insults? I assure that they are not. Now, the insults don't do any harm to me. But let's not claim they don't exist.

Only one person actually knows whether my beleifs are what I claim they are. And that is me. Nothing I have said, from beginning to end, has changed or contradicted other comments I have made. So there is no real evidence that I concocted anything. The only reason you claim I have is because I am an atheist who is not a materialist.

There’s no such thing. They don’t exist.

There is no such thing as gods. They don't exist.

Sometimes I felt they were frowning down at me from the top of the mountain, when I was living in Cyprus, during early morning swims.

I actually get what you mean.

I have had some experiences that I would call potential transcendental- but fleeting- especially in the desert but once on the water. I can understand from those experiences why there are people who have faith in the unseen and unproven.

Part of the Legends series of six books, The Wrath of the Gods tells the dramatic stories of those who dared to disobey the heavens - and it does not pay to anger the gods . . . If you’re lucky, you might just end up being transformed into a spider, falling hopelessly in love with your reflection, or being hunted by your own hounds.

 

[ding]

Logic.

I disagree. I believe there are incorporeal things that are not god. Therefore, believing in the incorporeal does not mean I am not an atheist (which is defined as someone who does not believe in god).

You are still arguing it.

Why don’t you create a thread so you can fully explain it?

After all the pages you have spent denigrating what I believe, I see no reason to start another thread. Plus, there are others in these last pages who have joined in.

You haven’t seen me denigrate you yet. You are the only atheist I know who believes in a lifeforce.

You keep referring to "lifeforce". Interesting how you ignore what you dislike and latch on to what suits you.

If I am the only atheist you know that you are aware of that believes in the incorporeal, so be it. How many you know does not change my beliefs.

You are using weasel words.

 

[ding]

“Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning...”
― C.S. Lewis

just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning. C.S. Lewis

 

[WinterBorn]

I disagree. I believe there are incorporeal things that are not god. Therefore, believing in the incorporeal does not mean I am not an atheist (which is defined as someone who does not believe in god).

You are still arguing it.

Why don’t you create a thread so you can fully explain it?

After all the pages you have spent denigrating what I believe, I see no reason to start another thread. Plus, there are others in these last pages who have joined in.

You haven’t seen me denigrate you yet. You are the only atheist I know who believes in a lifeforce.

You keep referring to "lifeforce". Interesting how you ignore what you dislike and latch on to what suits you.

If I am the only atheist you know that you are aware of that believes in the incorporeal, so be it. How many you know does not change my beliefs.

You are using weasel words.

I am using specific words.

BTW, have you not seen the newest thread in the Bull Ring? Syriusly too you up on your challenge.

 

[ding]

You are still arguing it.

Why don’t you create a thread so you can fully explain it?

After all the pages you have spent denigrating what I believe, I see no reason to start another thread. Plus, there are others in these last pages who have joined in.

You haven’t seen me denigrate you yet. You are the only atheist I know who believes in a lifeforce.

You keep referring to "lifeforce". Interesting how you ignore what you dislike and latch on to what suits you.

If I am the only atheist you know that you are aware of that believes in the incorporeal, so be it. How many you know does not change my beliefs.

You are using weasel words.

I am using specific words.

BTW, have you not seen the newest thread in the Bull Ring? Syriusly too you up on your challenge.

No. I hadn’t seen that. I hope he captured my position correctly.

It should be fun seeing him make an affirmative case for something. I suspect that won’t be the case.

Back to your use of weasel words... you can’t convey the essence of what you are trying to describe because if you did it would prove you believe in spirit. Not school spirit mind you but spirit not of this world. So instead you use a weasel word to avoid believing that you are not a materialist. The reality though is that if you are not a materialist then you are a dualist and believe in material and spirit. No amount of weasel words will ever defeat this simple logic.

 

[WinterBorn]

After all the pages you have spent denigrating what I believe, I see no reason to start another thread. Plus, there are others in these last pages who have joined in.

You haven’t seen me denigrate you yet. You are the only atheist I know who believes in a lifeforce.

You keep referring to "lifeforce". Interesting how you ignore what you dislike and latch on to what suits you.

If I am the only atheist you know that you are aware of that believes in the incorporeal, so be it. How many you know does not change my beliefs.

You are using weasel words.

I am using specific words.

BTW, have you not seen the newest thread in the Bull Ring? Syriusly too you up on your challenge.

No. I hadn’t seen that. I hope he captured my position correctly.

It should be fun seeing him make an affirmative case for something. I suspect that won’t be the case.

Back to your use of weasel words... you can’t convey the essence of what you are trying to describe because if you did it would prove you believe in spirit. Not school spirit mind you but spirit not of this world. So instead you use a weasel word to avoid believing that you are not a materialist. The reality though is that if you are not a materialist then you are a dualist and believe in material and spirit. No amount of weasel words will ever defeat this simple logic.

I don't use words that convey a belief in spirit because that is not what I believe. You keep trying to make it what I believe, by changing the words and even inventing definitions of your own.

If you do not believe that someone can believe in the incorporeal without believing in the spirit, that is your issue.

 

[ding]

You haven’t seen me denigrate you yet. You are the only atheist I know who believes in a lifeforce.

You keep referring to "lifeforce". Interesting how you ignore what you dislike and latch on to what suits you.

If I am the only atheist you know that you are aware of that believes in the incorporeal, so be it. How many you know does not change my beliefs.

You are using weasel words.

I am using specific words.

BTW, have you not seen the newest thread in the Bull Ring? Syriusly too you up on your challenge.

No. I hadn’t seen that. I hope he captured my position correctly.

It should be fun seeing him make an affirmative case for something. I suspect that won’t be the case.

Back to your use of weasel words... you can’t convey the essence of what you are trying to describe because if you did it would prove you believe in spirit. Not school spirit mind you but spirit not of this world. So instead you use a weasel word to avoid believing that you are not a materialist. The reality though is that if you are not a materialist then you are a dualist and believe in material and spirit. No amount of weasel words will ever defeat this simple logic.

I don't use words that convey a belief in spirit because that is not what I believe. You keep trying to make it what I believe, by changing the words and even inventing definitions of your own.

If you do not believe that someone can believe in the incorporeal without believing in the spirit, that is your issue.

if you are not a materialist then you are a dualist and believe in material and spirit. No amount of weasel words will ever defeat this simple logic.

 

[WinterBorn]

You keep referring to "lifeforce". Interesting how you ignore what you dislike and latch on to what suits you.

If I am the only atheist you know that you are aware of that believes in the incorporeal, so be it. How many you know does not change my beliefs.

You are using weasel words.

I am using specific words.

BTW, have you not seen the newest thread in the Bull Ring? Syriusly too you up on your challenge.

No. I hadn’t seen that. I hope he captured my position correctly.

It should be fun seeing him make an affirmative case for something. I suspect that won’t be the case.

Back to your use of weasel words... you can’t convey the essence of what you are trying to describe because if you did it would prove you believe in spirit. Not school spirit mind you but spirit not of this world. So instead you use a weasel word to avoid believing that you are not a materialist. The reality though is that if you are not a materialist then you are a dualist and believe in material and spirit. No amount of weasel words will ever defeat this simple logic.

I don't use words that convey a belief in spirit because that is not what I believe. You keep trying to make it what I believe, by changing the words and even inventing definitions of your own.

If you do not believe that someone can believe in the incorporeal without believing in the spirit, that is your issue.

if you are not a materialist then you are a dualist and believe in material and spirit. No amount of weasel words will ever defeat this simple logic.

Why have you asked me questions if you will simply ignore what I say?

I believe the word "spirit" describes something sentient. I do not believe in an incorporeal, sentient being. No weaseling at all. Just a simple statement of my personal beliefs.

 

[ding]

You are using weasel words.

I am using specific words.

BTW, have you not seen the newest thread in the Bull Ring? Syriusly too you up on your challenge.

No. I hadn’t seen that. I hope he captured my position correctly.

It should be fun seeing him make an affirmative case for something. I suspect that won’t be the case.

Back to your use of weasel words... you can’t convey the essence of what you are trying to describe because if you did it would prove you believe in spirit. Not school spirit mind you but spirit not of this world. So instead you use a weasel word to avoid believing that you are not a materialist. The reality though is that if you are not a materialist then you are a dualist and believe in material and spirit. No amount of weasel words will ever defeat this simple logic.

I don't use words that convey a belief in spirit because that is not what I believe. You keep trying to make it what I believe, by changing the words and even inventing definitions of your own.

If you do not believe that someone can believe in the incorporeal without believing in the spirit, that is your issue.

if you are not a materialist then you are a dualist and believe in material and spirit. No amount of weasel words will ever defeat this simple logic.

Why have you asked me questions if you will simply ignore what I say?

I believe the word "spirit" describes something sentient. I do not believe in an incorporeal, sentient being. No weaseling at all. Just a simple statement of my personal beliefs.

Then you are a materialist then.

 

[ding]

You are using weasel words.

I am using specific words.

BTW, have you not seen the newest thread in the Bull Ring? Syriusly too you up on your challenge.

No. I hadn’t seen that. I hope he captured my position correctly.

It should be fun seeing him make an affirmative case for something. I suspect that won’t be the case.

Back to your use of weasel words... you can’t convey the essence of what you are trying to describe because if you did it would prove you believe in spirit. Not school spirit mind you but spirit not of this world. So instead you use a weasel word to avoid believing that you are not a materialist. The reality though is that if you are not a materialist then you are a dualist and believe in material and spirit. No amount of weasel words will ever defeat this simple logic.

I don't use words that convey a belief in spirit because that is not what I believe. You keep trying to make it what I believe, by changing the words and even inventing definitions of your own.

If you do not believe that someone can believe in the incorporeal without believing in the spirit, that is your issue.

if you are not a materialist then you are a dualist and believe in material and spirit. No amount of weasel words will ever defeat this simple logic.

Why have you asked me questions if you will simply ignore what I say?

I believe the word "spirit" describes something sentient. I do not believe in an incorporeal, sentient being. No weaseling at all. Just a simple statement of my personal beliefs.

BTW I replied to Syriusly's challenge. You should read it. You might learn something about science.

 

[ding]

I am showing that you don’t understand the ancient text of your own people.

It’s pretty dishonest to sidestep and evade. Why are you terrified to critically examine your religion?

The Bible correctly states that we were made from dust. Stardust to be specific. Did you know that the atoms in your body were present when space and time were created? Since that time they have merely changed form. It is amazing that the atoms in our body are 14 billion years old and were present when the universe was perfectly ordered and all matter and energy occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of a single atom.

Quite the rationalization to say that 'dust' equals atoms.

Frankly Genesis 2 could have said that man was made from ferns and you would be proclaiming here that ferns were really stardust and telling us the same shtick.

Yes- atoms are amazing- and the Bible doesn't mention them once.

Let’s take this debates to the bull ring.

Do you accept the challenge?

Sure- I will go set that up right now.

I can't wait to see your "position."

You do realize you need to have a position which states what you believe something is rather than an argument against someone else's position. Because an argument against someone else's position really isn't a position. It's an argument against someone else having a belief.

Thanks in advance for proving my point about atheism and critical theory BTW.

 

[Mindful]

It’s pretty dishonest to sidestep and evade. Why are you terrified to critically examine your religion?

The Bible correctly states that we were made from dust. Stardust to be specific. Did you know that the atoms in your body were present when space and time were created? Since that time they have merely changed form. It is amazing that the atoms in our body are 14 billion years old and were present when the universe was perfectly ordered and all matter and energy occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of a single atom.

Quite the rationalization to say that 'dust' equals atoms.

Frankly Genesis 2 could have said that man was made from ferns and you would be proclaiming here that ferns were really stardust and telling us the same shtick.

Yes- atoms are amazing- and the Bible doesn't mention them once.

Let’s take this debates to the bull ring.

Do you accept the challenge?

Sure- I will go set that up right now.

I can't wait to see your "position."

You do realize you need to have a position which states what you believe something is rather than an argument against someone else's position. Because an argument against someone else's position really isn't a position. It's an argument against someone else having a belief.

Thanks in advance for proving my point about atheism and critical theory BTW.

Wot?

 

[ding]

The Bible correctly states that we were made from dust. Stardust to be specific. Did you know that the atoms in your body were present when space and time were created? Since that time they have merely changed form. It is amazing that the atoms in our body are 14 billion years old and were present when the universe was perfectly ordered and all matter and energy occupied the space of 1 billionth of 1 trillionth the size of a single atom.

Quite the rationalization to say that 'dust' equals atoms.

Frankly Genesis 2 could have said that man was made from ferns and you would be proclaiming here that ferns were really stardust and telling us the same shtick.

Yes- atoms are amazing- and the Bible doesn't mention them once.

Let’s take this debates to the bull ring.

Do you accept the challenge?

Sure- I will go set that up right now.

I can't wait to see your "position."

You do realize you need to have a position which states what you believe something is rather than an argument against someone else's position. Because an argument against someone else's position really isn't a position. It's an argument against someone else having a belief.

Thanks in advance for proving my point about atheism and critical theory BTW.

Wot?

Bull Ring - Ding: Genesis 2 refers to atoms when it says Dust

 

[WinterBorn]

I am using specific words.

BTW, have you not seen the newest thread in the Bull Ring? Syriusly too you up on your challenge.

No. I hadn’t seen that. I hope he captured my position correctly.

It should be fun seeing him make an affirmative case for something. I suspect that won’t be the case.

Back to your use of weasel words... you can’t convey the essence of what you are trying to describe because if you did it would prove you believe in spirit. Not school spirit mind you but spirit not of this world. So instead you use a weasel word to avoid believing that you are not a materialist. The reality though is that if you are not a materialist then you are a dualist and believe in material and spirit. No amount of weasel words will ever defeat this simple logic.

I don't use words that convey a belief in spirit because that is not what I believe. You keep trying to make it what I believe, by changing the words and even inventing definitions of your own.

If you do not believe that someone can believe in the incorporeal without believing in the spirit, that is your issue.

if you are not a materialist then you are a dualist and believe in material and spirit. No amount of weasel words will ever defeat this simple logic.

Why have you asked me questions if you will simply ignore what I say?

I believe the word "spirit" describes something sentient. I do not believe in an incorporeal, sentient being. No weaseling at all. Just a simple statement of my personal beliefs.

Then you are a materialist then.

A materialist who believes in the incorporeal that did not originate from the corporeal?

 

[ding]

No. I hadn’t seen that. I hope he captured my position correctly.

It should be fun seeing him make an affirmative case for something. I suspect that won’t be the case.

Back to your use of weasel words... you can’t convey the essence of what you are trying to describe because if you did it would prove you believe in spirit. Not school spirit mind you but spirit not of this world. So instead you use a weasel word to avoid believing that you are not a materialist. The reality though is that if you are not a materialist then you are a dualist and believe in material and spirit. No amount of weasel words will ever defeat this simple logic.

I don't use words that convey a belief in spirit because that is not what I believe. You keep trying to make it what I believe, by changing the words and even inventing definitions of your own.

If you do not believe that someone can believe in the incorporeal without believing in the spirit, that is your issue.

if you are not a materialist then you are a dualist and believe in material and spirit. No amount of weasel words will ever defeat this simple logic.

Why have you asked me questions if you will simply ignore what I say?

I believe the word "spirit" describes something sentient. I do not believe in an incorporeal, sentient being. No weaseling at all. Just a simple statement of my personal beliefs.

Then you are a materialist then.

A materialist who believes in the incorporeal that did not originate from the corporeal?

Yes. 100%. Because in the context of materialism and spiritualism everything originates from either material or spirit. So since you don't believe in spirits, it must have originated from the material world.

 

[ding]

If it didn't originate from the material world and it didn't originate from the spiritual world, then it must have originated from winterborn's mind.

 

[Hollie]

Quite the rationalization to say that 'dust' equals atoms.

Frankly Genesis 2 could have said that man was made from ferns and you would be proclaiming here that ferns were really stardust and telling us the same shtick.

Yes- atoms are amazing- and the Bible doesn't mention them once.

Let’s take this debates to the bull ring.

Do you accept the challenge?

Sure- I will go set that up right now.

I can't wait to see your "position."

You do realize you need to have a position which states what you believe something is rather than an argument against someone else's position. Because an argument against someone else's position really isn't a position. It's an argument against someone else having a belief.

Thanks in advance for proving my point about atheism and critical theory BTW.

Wot?

Bull Ring - Ding: Genesis 2 refers to atoms when it says Dust

Why are you trying to re-write the Genesis fable?

If the men who wrote the Bibles weren’t corrected by the gods, then the gods apparently were fine with the wording.