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

[ding]

Not exactly what I was talking about, Karl.

And yet, it fits your statement.

Actually it doesn’t. You are just too biased to see it.

I see a great deal of satisfaction in my work at raising great kids into wonderful people. Now you are trying to say what satisfies me?

I am saying that you still aren’t arguing against what I wrote.

I discussed something that was very satisfying. And, it is impermanent.

Love is spirit and it is permanent.

 

[ding]

If it were true that man’s existence were only to seek pleasure he would not be born to die. Since our bodies are doomed to die, our task on earth must be of a more spiritual nature. It cannot be unrestrained enjoyment of everyday life. It cannot be the search for the best ways to obtain material goods and then cheerfully get the most of them. It has to be the fulfillment of a permanent, earnest duty so that one's life journey may become an experience of moral growth, so that one may leave life a better human being than one started it.

The pleasure I received from raising children was life changing. And the work I did at that not only leaves me a better person, it leaves the world a better place when I am gone.

That sounds like a spiritualist.

Only because of your bias. Nothing I said is remotely spiritual in nature.

Sure it is. You’ve just rationalized it isn’t.

You rail against being a materialist and you rail against being a spiritualist.

You are a confusedist.

I rail against inaccurate depictions of what I am or what I believe.

How is what I said spiritual? I discussed what I did and the effect it will have after I am gone.

You used to be a Christian. Now you are an atheist who believes in a lifeforce.

Do I need to say more?

 

[WinterBorn]

And yet, it fits your statement.

Actually it doesn’t. You are just too biased to see it.

I see a great deal of satisfaction in my work at raising great kids into wonderful people. Now you are trying to say what satisfies me?

I am saying that you still aren’t arguing against what I wrote.

I discussed something that was very satisfying. And, it is impermanent.

Love is spirit and it is permanent.

Love is incorporeal, but I do not believe it is "spirit". But then, you are fond of redefining words.

 

[WinterBorn]

The pleasure I received from raising children was life changing. And the work I did at that not only leaves me a better person, it leaves the world a better place when I am gone.

That sounds like a spiritualist.

Only because of your bias. Nothing I said is remotely spiritual in nature.

Sure it is. You’ve just rationalized it isn’t.

You rail against being a materialist and you rail against being a spiritualist.

You are a confusedist.

I rail against inaccurate depictions of what I am or what I believe.

How is what I said spiritual? I discussed what I did and the effect it will have after I am gone.

You used to be a Christian. Now you are an atheist who believes in a lifeforce.

Do I need to say more?

If you want to make a point, yes you do. My beliefs changed. That does not denote confusion at all. Or perhaps it denotes prior confusion, followed by clarity.

 

[ding]

Actually it doesn’t. You are just too biased to see it.

I see a great deal of satisfaction in my work at raising great kids into wonderful people. Now you are trying to say what satisfies me?

I am saying that you still aren’t arguing against what I wrote.

I discussed something that was very satisfying. And, it is impermanent.

Love is spirit and it is permanent.

Love is incorporeal, but I do not believe it is "spirit". But then, you are fond of redefining words.

Love is spirit. Deal with it.

 

[ding]

That sounds like a spiritualist.

Only because of your bias. Nothing I said is remotely spiritual in nature.

Sure it is. You’ve just rationalized it isn’t.

You rail against being a materialist and you rail against being a spiritualist.

You are a confusedist.

I rail against inaccurate depictions of what I am or what I believe.

How is what I said spiritual? I discussed what I did and the effect it will have after I am gone.

You used to be a Christian. Now you are an atheist who believes in a lifeforce.

Do I need to say more?

If you want to make a point, yes you do. My beliefs changed. That does not denote confusion at all. Or perhaps it denotes prior confusion, followed by clarity.

It is your belief that you are an atheist who believes in a lifeforce which proves you can’t abandon your spiritual nature.

It is your belief that love is not spirit which confirms your confusion.

 

[WinterBorn]

I see a great deal of satisfaction in my work at raising great kids into wonderful people. Now you are trying to say what satisfies me?

I am saying that you still aren’t arguing against what I wrote.

I discussed something that was very satisfying. And, it is impermanent.

Love is spirit and it is permanent.

Love is incorporeal, but I do not believe it is "spirit". But then, you are fond of redefining words.

Love is spirit. Deal with it.

That is what you believe. It is not what I believe. And you cannot prove it either way. Deal with it.

 

[ding]

I am saying that you still aren’t arguing against what I wrote.

I discussed something that was very satisfying. And, it is impermanent.

Love is spirit and it is permanent.

Love is incorporeal, but I do not believe it is "spirit". But then, you are fond of redefining words.

Love is spirit. Deal with it.

That is what you believe. It is not what I believe. And you cannot prove it either way. Deal with it.

Yes. That is exactly what I believe and if you don’t believe that then you must believe it is nothing more than an electrochemical reaction in your brain.

 

[WinterBorn]

Only because of your bias. Nothing I said is remotely spiritual in nature.

Sure it is. You’ve just rationalized it isn’t.

You rail against being a materialist and you rail against being a spiritualist.

You are a confusedist.

I rail against inaccurate depictions of what I am or what I believe.

How is what I said spiritual? I discussed what I did and the effect it will have after I am gone.

You used to be a Christian. Now you are an atheist who believes in a lifeforce.

Do I need to say more?

If you want to make a point, yes you do. My beliefs changed. That does not denote confusion at all. Or perhaps it denotes prior confusion, followed by clarity.

It is your belief that you are an atheist who believes in a lifeforce which proves you can’t abandon your spiritual nature.

It is your belief that love is not spirit which confirms your confusion.

I believe in the incorporeal which did not originate in the corporeal. Your desperation to be right has you calling it "lifeforce" and "spirit" when you discuss my beliefs.

On the contrary, my not believing that love is the same as spirit is consistent with what my stated beliefs. It is your desperation to be right that has you making such claims.

 

[WinterBorn]

I discussed something that was very satisfying. And, it is impermanent.

Love is spirit and it is permanent.

Love is incorporeal, but I do not believe it is "spirit". But then, you are fond of redefining words.

Love is spirit. Deal with it.

That is what you believe. It is not what I believe. And you cannot prove it either way. Deal with it.

Yes. That is exactly what I believe and if you don’t believe that then you must believe it is nothing more than an electrochemical reaction in your brain.

Must I? Why? Because you say so? lol No.

I have stated my beliefs and explained why I believe the way I do. Your claims do not invalidate those beliefs.

 

[ding]

Sure it is. You’ve just rationalized it isn’t.

You rail against being a materialist and you rail against being a spiritualist.

You are a confusedist.

I rail against inaccurate depictions of what I am or what I believe.

How is what I said spiritual? I discussed what I did and the effect it will have after I am gone.

You used to be a Christian. Now you are an atheist who believes in a lifeforce.

Do I need to say more?

If you want to make a point, yes you do. My beliefs changed. That does not denote confusion at all. Or perhaps it denotes prior confusion, followed by clarity.

It is your belief that you are an atheist who believes in a lifeforce which proves you can’t abandon your spiritual nature.

It is your belief that love is not spirit which confirms your confusion.

I believe in the incorporeal which did not originate in the corporeal. Your desperation to be right has you calling it "lifeforce" and "spirit" when you discuss my beliefs.

On the contrary, my not believing that love is the same as spirit is consistent with what my stated beliefs. It is your desperation to be right that has you making such claims.

You don’t know what you believe. You can’t explain any of it. You don’t know what it is. You don’t know how you know you have it and you think love is a chemical reaction.

 

[ding]

Love is spirit and it is permanent.

Love is incorporeal, but I do not believe it is "spirit". But then, you are fond of redefining words.

Love is spirit. Deal with it.

That is what you believe. It is not what I believe. And you cannot prove it either way. Deal with it.

Yes. That is exactly what I believe and if you don’t believe that then you must believe it is nothing more than an electrochemical reaction in your brain.

Must I? Why? Because you say so? lol No.

I have stated my beliefs and explained why I believe the way I do. Your claims do not invalidate those beliefs.

If love is not spirit or a chemical reaction then what is it?

 

[ding]

Love is spirit and it is permanent.

Love is incorporeal, but I do not believe it is "spirit". But then, you are fond of redefining words.

Love is spirit. Deal with it.

That is what you believe. It is not what I believe. And you cannot prove it either way. Deal with it.

Yes. That is exactly what I believe and if you don’t believe that then you must believe it is nothing more than an electrochemical reaction in your brain.

Must I? Why? Because you say so? lol No.

I have stated my beliefs and explained why I believe the way I do. Your claims do not invalidate those beliefs.

You actually didn’t state your beliefs. You said love isn’t spirit and love isn’t a chemical reaction. You actually never said what it is. You are a textbook example of critical theory.

 

[WinterBorn]

I discussed something that was very satisfying. And, it is impermanent.

Love is spirit and it is permanent.

Love is incorporeal, but I do not believe it is "spirit". But then, you are fond of redefining words.

Love is spirit. Deal with it.

That is what you believe. It is not what I believe. And you cannot prove it either way. Deal with it.

Yes. That is exactly what I believe and if you don’t believe that then you must believe it is nothing more than an electrochemical reaction in your brain.

Once again, you demand that others accept your beliefs and limitations. I do not. I believe love is incorporeal. I also believe that spirit is not the same as love.

 

[WinterBorn]

Love is incorporeal, but I do not believe it is "spirit". But then, you are fond of redefining words.

Love is spirit. Deal with it.

That is what you believe. It is not what I believe. And you cannot prove it either way. Deal with it.

Yes. That is exactly what I believe and if you don’t believe that then you must believe it is nothing more than an electrochemical reaction in your brain.

Must I? Why? Because you say so? lol No.

I have stated my beliefs and explained why I believe the way I do. Your claims do not invalidate those beliefs.

If love is not spirit or a chemical reaction then what is it?

An incorporeal thing that did not originate in the corporeal. The fact that you define all things that fit that as "spirit" is your belief, not mine. Deal with it.

 

[WinterBorn]

Love is incorporeal, but I do not believe it is "spirit". But then, you are fond of redefining words.

Love is spirit. Deal with it.

That is what you believe. It is not what I believe. And you cannot prove it either way. Deal with it.

Yes. That is exactly what I believe and if you don’t believe that then you must believe it is nothing more than an electrochemical reaction in your brain.

Must I? Why? Because you say so? lol No.

I have stated my beliefs and explained why I believe the way I do. Your claims do not invalidate those beliefs.

You actually didn’t state your beliefs. You said love isn’t spirit and love isn’t a chemical reaction. You actually never said what it is. You are a textbook example of critical theory.

I said I don't know what it is. I believe that the term "spirit" denotes a sentience. Love is not necessarily sentient.

 

[ding]

Love is spirit and it is permanent.

Love is incorporeal, but I do not believe it is "spirit". But then, you are fond of redefining words.

Love is spirit. Deal with it.

That is what you believe. It is not what I believe. And you cannot prove it either way. Deal with it.

Yes. That is exactly what I believe and if you don’t believe that then you must believe it is nothing more than an electrochemical reaction in your brain.

Once again, you demand that others accept your beliefs and limitations. I do not. I believe love is incorporeal. I also believe that spirit is not the same as love.

There are only two choices. Matter or spirit. Everything else will simply to one of these two common denominators.

 

[WinterBorn]

Love is incorporeal, but I do not believe it is "spirit". But then, you are fond of redefining words.

Love is spirit. Deal with it.

That is what you believe. It is not what I believe. And you cannot prove it either way. Deal with it.

Yes. That is exactly what I believe and if you don’t believe that then you must believe it is nothing more than an electrochemical reaction in your brain.

Once again, you demand that others accept your beliefs and limitations. I do not. I believe love is incorporeal. I also believe that spirit is not the same as love.

There are only two choices. Matter or spirit. Everything else will simply to one of these two common denominators.

No, I do not believe that. I have stated what I believe as far as Love. And that fits neither. Your repeated insistence does not change that.

 

[ding]

Love is spirit. Deal with it.

That is what you believe. It is not what I believe. And you cannot prove it either way. Deal with it.

Yes. That is exactly what I believe and if you don’t believe that then you must believe it is nothing more than an electrochemical reaction in your brain.

Once again, you demand that others accept your beliefs and limitations. I do not. I believe love is incorporeal. I also believe that spirit is not the same as love.

There are only two choices. Matter or spirit. Everything else will simply to one of these two common denominators.

No, I do not believe that. I have stated what I believe as far as Love. And that fits neither. Your repeated insistence does not change that.

Which makes perfect sense since you can’t explain it.

 

[Syriusly]

We crave and cling to impermanent states and things which are incapable of satisfying us.

I don't doubt you crave those things. But you frankly have no idea what I crave or cling to.

What else is there? If you believe everything was created by the material world then those feelings you get are nothing more than electrochemical responses in your brain.

And again- you have no idea what I crave- you imagine you know what I crave- based upon your own personal experiences- but you have no way of knowing what I crave.

As far as things incapable of satisfying us- again speak for yourself. Many things satisfy me- from drinking the perfect pour of beer, smelling a wonderful rose, a glorious sunrise, seeing my child take her first step, seeing her graduate.

And as far as feelings being nothing more than electrochemical responses- well that is really what they are. As is- in my opinion- your belief in some diety.

I dropped acid one time. And I saw God. Truly I saw God while I was on acid- and then when I came down I realized it was just a boy with a boogy board.

Our brains are electrochemical machines- incredible electrochemical machines- that are affected by drugs and hormones and blood sugar and blood flow- I can marvel at our amazing brains without needing to give credit to some unseen hidden hand.