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

[edthecynic]

Except that the laws of nature were in place before space and time. Which means that the potential for all of those non-material things you believe in existed before space and time began. Which means that non-material things existed before space and time.

Why are you back tracking now though? You argued that my belief was based upon an assumption of a beginning, right?

Are you arguing that the universe is infinite acting? That it always existed as in forever? The second law of thermodynamics precludes that. The idea of a cyclical universe is dead for precisely that reason. As time approaches infinity, the universe approaches thermal equilibrium. This we do not see.

"Except that the laws of nature were in place before space and time. Which means that the potential for all of those non-material things you believe in existed before space and time began. Which means that non-material things existed before space and time."

And you know this how?

A little birdie told him.

Do you believe that emotions like love are anything other than electrochemical reactions in the brain?

Do you believe a dog is capable of love?

Yes. My turn.

Do you believe that emotions like love are anything other than electrochemical reactions in the brain?

Which came first, the material dog or the dog's love?
Can you answer that question honestly? I suspect you can't.

 

[ding]

"Except that the laws of nature were in place before space and time. Which means that the potential for all of those non-material things you believe in existed before space and time began. Which means that non-material things existed before space and time."

And you know this how?

A little birdie told him.

Do you believe that emotions like love are anything other than electrochemical reactions in the brain?

Do you believe a dog is capable of love?

Yes. My turn.

Do you believe that emotions like love are anything other than electrochemical reactions in the brain?

Which came first, the material dog or the dog's love?
Can you answer that question honestly? I suspect you can't.

I wouldn't know. I suspect it develops or grows. My turn.

Do you believe that emotions like love are anything other than electrochemical reactions in the brain?

I can totally understand why you are avoiding this question. I like to challenge people to confront their incongruities.

 

[edthecynic]

The painter cannot be the painting.

But the spiritual soul of the painter is in the painting. The material painter came before the spiritual painting. The spiritual painting came from the material painter, not the other way around.

 

[ding]

The painter cannot be the painting.

But the spiritual soul of the painter is in the painting. The material painter came before the spiritual painting. The spiritual painting came from the material painter, not the other way around.

I agree that the spiritual soul of the painter is in the painting. I don't know how you could believe that though. You are a materialist who does not believe he has a soul.

Yes, the painter came before the painting.

Yes, the painting put his spirit in the painting.

Congratulations you are a Christian.

Now will you finally answer my question.

Do you believe that emotions like love are anything other than electrochemical reactions in the brain?

 

[ding]

Funny how atheists recoil from the logical conclusions of their own belief such that they cannot admit that they believe the love they feel for their children is nothing more than an electrochemical response firing in their brain as a result of evolutionary processes.

It's almost like they recoil from their own beliefs.

 

[WinterBorn]

You have no logical basis to believe that God is the only incorporeal thing in the universe. I have a logical basis for allowing that there are things we do not know, yet. I'm sorry this offends you but it is the logical consequence of insisting that your beliefs are the only accurate beliefs.

And that changes the reality that you believe you are more than just atoms how?

This isn't about the existence of God. This is about your illogical belief that you aren't a materialist.

If I believe there are incorporeal things, then the supposition that I am a materialist is inaccurate.

Not if you are an atheist.

I'm not arguing that you don't believe in the existence of incorporeal things. I fully agree that you do believe they exist. But if you are an atheist you must believe incorporeal things originate only from material things. That they don't originated because you are a spiritual being. The very best you can believe is that your spiritual responses are nothing more than evolutionary programing that only exist for evolutionary purposes. That the love or anger or sadness you feel are only because of an electrochemical process firing inside your brain.

I totally get why you are repulsed by this thought but it is the reality of being an atheist. You can't eat your cake and have it too.

"But if you are an atheist you must believe incorporeal things originate only from material things"??

I must? According to whom? Why do you think you get to define who I am? You have done it repeatedly in this thread. Perhaps my beliefs are seen as a threat to yours?

I do not believe that incorporeal things must originate from material things. That is a pretty big stretch from "I don't believe in god".

Where do incorporeal things originate from then if not material things?

I don't know. And I accept that there are things I don't know. That does not change the definition of "atheist".

 

[edthecynic]

A little birdie told him.

Do you believe that emotions like love are anything other than electrochemical reactions in the brain?

Do you believe a dog is capable of love?

Yes. My turn.

Do you believe that emotions like love are anything other than electrochemical reactions in the brain?

Which came first, the material dog or the dog's love?
Can you answer that question honestly? I suspect you can't.

I wouldn't know. I suspect it develops or grows. My turn.

Do you believe that emotions like love are anything other than electrochemical reactions in the brain?

I can totally understand why you are avoiding this question. I like to challenge people to confront their incongruities.

I knew you could not answer honestly. Could the dog's love "grow" if the material dog did not already exist?

And I have answered your question repeatedly, you just don't like how the questions I answer you with expose the flaw in your "logic" that the nonmaterial can exist before the material.

 

[WinterBorn]

You have no logical basis to believe that God is the only incorporeal thing in the universe. I have a logical basis for allowing that there are things we do not know, yet. I'm sorry this offends you but it is the logical consequence of insisting that your beliefs are the only accurate beliefs.

And that changes the reality that you believe you are more than just atoms how?

This isn't about the existence of God. This is about your illogical belief that you aren't a materialist.

If I believe there are incorporeal things, then the supposition that I am a materialist is inaccurate.

Not if you are an atheist.

I'm not arguing that you don't believe in the existence of incorporeal things. I fully agree that you do believe they exist. But if you are an atheist you must believe incorporeal things originate only from material things. That they don't originated because you are a spiritual being. The very best you can believe is that your spiritual responses are nothing more than evolutionary programing that only exist for evolutionary purposes. That the love or anger or sadness you feel are only because of an electrochemical process firing inside your brain.

I totally get why you are repulsed by this thought but it is the reality of being an atheist. You can't eat your cake and have it too.

"But if you are an atheist you must believe incorporeal things originate only from material things"??

I must? According to whom? Why do you think you get to define who I am? You have done it repeatedly in this thread. Perhaps my beliefs are seen as a threat to yours?

I do not believe that incorporeal things must originate from material things. That is a pretty big stretch from "I don't believe in god".

Do you believe that emotions like love are anything other than electrochemical reactions in the brain?

Yes, I believe that some emotions and feelings transcend electro-chemical reactions and material things.

 

[ding]

And that changes the reality that you believe you are more than just atoms how?

This isn't about the existence of God. This is about your illogical belief that you aren't a materialist.

If I believe there are incorporeal things, then the supposition that I am a materialist is inaccurate.

Not if you are an atheist.

I'm not arguing that you don't believe in the existence of incorporeal things. I fully agree that you do believe they exist. But if you are an atheist you must believe incorporeal things originate only from material things. That they don't originated because you are a spiritual being. The very best you can believe is that your spiritual responses are nothing more than evolutionary programing that only exist for evolutionary purposes. That the love or anger or sadness you feel are only because of an electrochemical process firing inside your brain.

I totally get why you are repulsed by this thought but it is the reality of being an atheist. You can't eat your cake and have it too.

"But if you are an atheist you must believe incorporeal things originate only from material things"??

I must? According to whom? Why do you think you get to define who I am? You have done it repeatedly in this thread. Perhaps my beliefs are seen as a threat to yours?

I do not believe that incorporeal things must originate from material things. That is a pretty big stretch from "I don't believe in god".

Where do incorporeal things originate from then if not material things?

I don't know. And I accept that there are things I don't know. That does not change the definition of "atheist".

If you are an atheist, you can't believe it comes from your creator, right?

 

[ding]

And that changes the reality that you believe you are more than just atoms how?

This isn't about the existence of God. This is about your illogical belief that you aren't a materialist.

If I believe there are incorporeal things, then the supposition that I am a materialist is inaccurate.

Not if you are an atheist.

I'm not arguing that you don't believe in the existence of incorporeal things. I fully agree that you do believe they exist. But if you are an atheist you must believe incorporeal things originate only from material things. That they don't originated because you are a spiritual being. The very best you can believe is that your spiritual responses are nothing more than evolutionary programing that only exist for evolutionary purposes. That the love or anger or sadness you feel are only because of an electrochemical process firing inside your brain.

I totally get why you are repulsed by this thought but it is the reality of being an atheist. You can't eat your cake and have it too.

"But if you are an atheist you must believe incorporeal things originate only from material things"??

I must? According to whom? Why do you think you get to define who I am? You have done it repeatedly in this thread. Perhaps my beliefs are seen as a threat to yours?

I do not believe that incorporeal things must originate from material things. That is a pretty big stretch from "I don't believe in god".

Do you believe that emotions like love are anything other than electrochemical reactions in the brain?

Yes, I believe that some emotions and feelings transcend electro-chemical reactions and material things.

Some? Why not all?

 

[WinterBorn]

Funny how atheists recoil from the logical conclusions of their own belief such that they cannot admit that they believe the love they feel for their children is nothing more than an electrochemical response firing in their brain as a result of evolutionary processes.

It's almost like they recoil from their own beliefs.

See, this sort of nonsense is ridiculous. You take a simple term like "atheist", which means someone who doesn't believe in god, and try to make it fit what YOU want atheists to be.

 

[ding]

Do you believe that emotions like love are anything other than electrochemical reactions in the brain?

Do you believe a dog is capable of love?

Yes. My turn.

Do you believe that emotions like love are anything other than electrochemical reactions in the brain?

Which came first, the material dog or the dog's love?
Can you answer that question honestly? I suspect you can't.

I wouldn't know. I suspect it develops or grows. My turn.

Do you believe that emotions like love are anything other than electrochemical reactions in the brain?

I can totally understand why you are avoiding this question. I like to challenge people to confront their incongruities.

I knew you could not answer honestly. Could the dog's love "grow" if the material dog did not already exist?

And I have answered your question repeatedly, you just don't like how the questions I answer you with expose the flaw in your "logic" that the nonmaterial can exist before the material.

I answered that question as honestly as I could. I believe that love grows and that it is more than an electrochemical reaction in the brain. I think it s a lot like consciousness in that regard.

Do you believe that emotions like love are anything other than electrochemical reactions in the brain?

 

[WinterBorn]

If I believe there are incorporeal things, then the supposition that I am a materialist is inaccurate.

Not if you are an atheist.

I'm not arguing that you don't believe in the existence of incorporeal things. I fully agree that you do believe they exist. But if you are an atheist you must believe incorporeal things originate only from material things. That they don't originated because you are a spiritual being. The very best you can believe is that your spiritual responses are nothing more than evolutionary programing that only exist for evolutionary purposes. That the love or anger or sadness you feel are only because of an electrochemical process firing inside your brain.

I totally get why you are repulsed by this thought but it is the reality of being an atheist. You can't eat your cake and have it too.

"But if you are an atheist you must believe incorporeal things originate only from material things"??

I must? According to whom? Why do you think you get to define who I am? You have done it repeatedly in this thread. Perhaps my beliefs are seen as a threat to yours?

I do not believe that incorporeal things must originate from material things. That is a pretty big stretch from "I don't believe in god".

Where do incorporeal things originate from then if not material things?

I don't know. And I accept that there are things I don't know. That does not change the definition of "atheist".

If you are an atheist, you can't believe it comes from your creator, right?

I do not believe there is a creator. But that is all it means. It does not mean I do not believe in incorporeal things. It does not mean I believe everything comes from material things. Some atheists do and some don't.

 

[WinterBorn]

If I believe there are incorporeal things, then the supposition that I am a materialist is inaccurate.

Not if you are an atheist.

I'm not arguing that you don't believe in the existence of incorporeal things. I fully agree that you do believe they exist. But if you are an atheist you must believe incorporeal things originate only from material things. That they don't originated because you are a spiritual being. The very best you can believe is that your spiritual responses are nothing more than evolutionary programing that only exist for evolutionary purposes. That the love or anger or sadness you feel are only because of an electrochemical process firing inside your brain.

I totally get why you are repulsed by this thought but it is the reality of being an atheist. You can't eat your cake and have it too.

"But if you are an atheist you must believe incorporeal things originate only from material things"??

I must? According to whom? Why do you think you get to define who I am? You have done it repeatedly in this thread. Perhaps my beliefs are seen as a threat to yours?

I do not believe that incorporeal things must originate from material things. That is a pretty big stretch from "I don't believe in god".

Do you believe that emotions like love are anything other than electrochemical reactions in the brain?

Yes, I believe that some emotions and feelings transcend electro-chemical reactions and material things.

Some? Why not all?

Some are, in fact, electro-chemical reactions in the brain. Like fear.

 

[ding]

Funny how atheists recoil from the logical conclusions of their own belief such that they cannot admit that they believe the love they feel for their children is nothing more than an electrochemical response firing in their brain as a result of evolutionary processes.

It's almost like they recoil from their own beliefs.

See, this sort of nonsense is ridiculous. You take a simple term like "atheist", which means someone who doesn't believe in god, and try to make it fit what YOU want atheists to be.

No. It is exactly what they say they are. Just matter. That there is nothing beyond matter. That everything happened on accident. That there is no purpose to any of this.

I disagree with all of it by the way.

 

[ding]

Not if you are an atheist.

I'm not arguing that you don't believe in the existence of incorporeal things. I fully agree that you do believe they exist. But if you are an atheist you must believe incorporeal things originate only from material things. That they don't originated because you are a spiritual being. The very best you can believe is that your spiritual responses are nothing more than evolutionary programing that only exist for evolutionary purposes. That the love or anger or sadness you feel are only because of an electrochemical process firing inside your brain.

I totally get why you are repulsed by this thought but it is the reality of being an atheist. You can't eat your cake and have it too.

"But if you are an atheist you must believe incorporeal things originate only from material things"??

I must? According to whom? Why do you think you get to define who I am? You have done it repeatedly in this thread. Perhaps my beliefs are seen as a threat to yours?

I do not believe that incorporeal things must originate from material things. That is a pretty big stretch from "I don't believe in god".

Do you believe that emotions like love are anything other than electrochemical reactions in the brain?

Yes, I believe that some emotions and feelings transcend electro-chemical reactions and material things.

Some? Why not all?

Some are, in fact, electro-chemical reactions in the brain. Like fear.

How about love?

 

[WinterBorn]

A little birdie told him.

Do you believe that emotions like love are anything other than electrochemical reactions in the brain?

Do you believe a dog is capable of love?

Yes. My turn.

Do you believe that emotions like love are anything other than electrochemical reactions in the brain?

Which came first, the material dog or the dog's love?
Can you answer that question honestly? I suspect you can't.

I wouldn't know. I suspect it develops or grows. My turn.

Do you believe that emotions like love are anything other than electrochemical reactions in the brain?

I can totally understand why you are avoiding this question. I like to challenge people to confront their incongruities.

LMAO!!! Oh that is hilarious!

You have spent pages and pages trying to insist that my beliefs fit your definitions. They don't. But, rather than stick with standard, accepted definitions, you want to expand them and expect everyone's beliefs to still fit that one box.

The incongruities lie with you.

 

[ding]

Not if you are an atheist.

I'm not arguing that you don't believe in the existence of incorporeal things. I fully agree that you do believe they exist. But if you are an atheist you must believe incorporeal things originate only from material things. That they don't originated because you are a spiritual being. The very best you can believe is that your spiritual responses are nothing more than evolutionary programing that only exist for evolutionary purposes. That the love or anger or sadness you feel are only because of an electrochemical process firing inside your brain.

I totally get why you are repulsed by this thought but it is the reality of being an atheist. You can't eat your cake and have it too.

"But if you are an atheist you must believe incorporeal things originate only from material things"??

I must? According to whom? Why do you think you get to define who I am? You have done it repeatedly in this thread. Perhaps my beliefs are seen as a threat to yours?

I do not believe that incorporeal things must originate from material things. That is a pretty big stretch from "I don't believe in god".

Where do incorporeal things originate from then if not material things?

I don't know. And I accept that there are things I don't know. That does not change the definition of "atheist".

If you are an atheist, you can't believe it comes from your creator, right?

I do not believe there is a creator. But that is all it means. It does not mean I do not believe in incorporeal things. It does not mean I believe everything comes from material things. Some atheists do and some don't.

I never said you don't believe in incorporeal things. I'm pretty sure every one does. The question is where do they originate from. Materialists (who do not believe in God or spirit) believe they originate from the corporeal. Religious people believe they originate from the incorporeal. You apparently are in no man's land.

 

[ding]

Do you believe that emotions like love are anything other than electrochemical reactions in the brain?

Do you believe a dog is capable of love?

Yes. My turn.

Do you believe that emotions like love are anything other than electrochemical reactions in the brain?

Which came first, the material dog or the dog's love?
Can you answer that question honestly? I suspect you can't.

I wouldn't know. I suspect it develops or grows. My turn.

Do you believe that emotions like love are anything other than electrochemical reactions in the brain?

I can totally understand why you are avoiding this question. I like to challenge people to confront their incongruities.

LMAO!!! Oh that is hilarious!

You have spent pages and pages trying to insist that my beliefs fit your definitions. They don't. But, rather than stick with standard, accepted definitions, you want to expand them and expect everyone's beliefs to still fit that one box.

The incongruities lie with you.

I'm glad you were able to laugh. It seems like you are getting some hard feelings. That isn't my intention. My intention is exactly what I said it was. To make you think. You are totally struggling with your atheism.

So where does love originate from?

 

[WinterBorn]

Funny how atheists recoil from the logical conclusions of their own belief such that they cannot admit that they believe the love they feel for their children is nothing more than an electrochemical response firing in their brain as a result of evolutionary processes.

It's almost like they recoil from their own beliefs.

See, this sort of nonsense is ridiculous. You take a simple term like "atheist", which means someone who doesn't believe in god, and try to make it fit what YOU want atheists to be.

No. It is exactly what they say they are. Just matter. That there is nothing beyond matter. That everything happened on accident. That there is no purpose to any of this.

I disagree with all of it by the way.

From Merriam Webster dictionary:
"atheist
noun

athe·ist | \ˈā-thē-ist

\
Definition of atheist
: a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates atheism"


That is the definition of "atheist". No where in that definition does it claim that all atheists believe everything originates from the material world.

If you wish to create your own definition, feel free to do so. I don't need a new definition.