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

[james bond]

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.

That's a magical assumption based on nothing

No. It's called inflation theory. You should read up on it. It explain show space and time were created from nothing without violating the law of conservation and began to expand and cool until such time that beings that know and create were ultimately produced according to the laws of nature which existed before space and time.

Do you even have any science background at all?

I have to disagree. You're referring to cosmic inflation and that never got anywhere. It went up against classical physics or God and was defeated. Stephen Hawking wrote his last paper on it. If he could prove his Hawking Radiation, then he would have received the Nobel Prize. He had the "C" and the "T", but could not spell cat. The things that atheist scientists hypothesize and theorize about space is not true. These scientists spend their whole lives on something and come up with nothing. Stephen Hawking was the guy I learned the Big Bang Theory from. He theorized the Big Bang started with a single point of singularity in quantum mechanics. Let's give him the "near" infinite temperature and density for singularity. Then comes the microsecond after the huge expansion starts. This is the microsecond after his Big Bang. What happened? Classical physics got in his way. Not only that, cosmic inflation is impossible. Just try to describe what happened if you believe it did. Hawking tried, but died trying to show the origins of the universe and failed. His last words were "We live in the Matrix." (which is probably right, but are you taking the red or blue pill?) Science can be a cruel mistress. All this time, you've been believing in pseudoscience if you believe in BBT and cosmic inflation.

Stephen Hawking's Last Words: We Live In 'The Matrix'?

Stephen Hawking was of the atheist religion. I think it's more a religion than a critical theory although atheists do beotch about how much power Christians have. To the contrary, in science, they systematically eliminated God, the supernatural and the Bible as science. This really isn't science.

 

[Karl Rand]

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.

 

[cnm]

the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

You don't know that.

 

[cnm]

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.

No, your assumptions are more magical.

 

[cnm]

So how else do you think the universe was created if not by following rules?

We don't know. How many times does it have to be said?

 

[edthecynic]

No. It's called inflation theory. You should read up on it. It explain show space and time were created from nothing without violating the law of conservation

Here you go again with the same disproved BS you got shot down in a number of threads only to pop up in a new thread with the same BS.
First of all, there is no such thing as nothing.

 

[edthecynic]

The best explanation for how the universe began is the inflation model.

BULLSHIT!
The inflation model is severely flawed, as has been pointed out to you in many other threads. You need to come up with some new BULLSHIT!

 

[edthecynic]

You believe the leading cosmological model for the creation of space and time is a magical assumption?

Just because you PONTIFICATE that something is the "leading cosmological model" does not make it so.

 

[SweetSue92]

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 a "lack".

In the most 21st century "identity" thing atheists can think of, their worldview is now entirely self centered as well. IOW they scan the cosmos of their internal workings, find a "lack of belief" and declare that they are atheists.

I mean the mind boggles. But here we are.

 

[Karl Rand]

the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

You don't know that.

Maybe he doesn’t but the question remains, which universe?

 

[Lysistrata]

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?

What "religion" are you talking about? Here on USMB, I've seen countless attacks on, and criticism of Muslims and Jews. In the past months, I have seen beautiful Christian services for Matthew Shepard and George H.W. Bush, both taking place at the National Cathedral. No one has attacked "religion," which is a very generic term. The stamp of "religion" means nothing in this milieu.

 

[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?

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.

 

[rightwinger]

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 believe them

 

[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?

There is no “theory of atheism”

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

I agree there is no theory of atheism. That’s why it is resigned to validating it’s beliefs through the practice of critical theory.

 

[K9Buck]

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.

 

[ding]

Let’s please stay on topic that the practice of atheism will never move beyond the practice of critical theory.

 

[Taz]

The practise of religion has not moved beyond the practise of unsupported theory.

 

[rightwinger]

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

I agree there is no theory of atheism. That’s why it is resigned to validating it’s beliefs through the practice of critical theory.

We don’t have to validate anything

You have to validate your religion to us if you expect us to believe you

So far, you have failed

 

[rightwinger]

Why is it Christians are always posting threads attacking atheists while atheists never post threads attacking peoples religion?

 

[rightwinger]

Let’s please stay on topic that the practice of atheism will never move beyond the practice of critical theory.

I have never practiced atheism.

It is just that I don’t believe religious fantasies