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

[WinterBorn]

I have stated, repeatedly, that I believe in the incorporeal that did not originate in the corporeal. Neither of us has scientific or empirical proof that the incorporeal even exists, much less its origins.

You are missing the point you literally have no basis for your belief that you can list. I do.

I have, as I said many pages ago, my own personal experiences and my life. That is all I need for a personal belief. After all, it is not as if I am rying to convince others that my belief is the only right one, nor am I trying to denigrate other people's beliefs.

You have personal experiences with something that is intangible and did not come from the material world and is not sentient? I call bullshit on that.

Not what I said. I have had personal experiences that led me to believe in the incorporeal. I have seen no evidence that it originated in the corporeal.

The incorporeal that isn’t sentient and did not originate from the material world? What ever could that possibly be?

Since it cannot be studied, I don't know what it is.

 

[ding]

You are missing the point you literally have no basis for your belief that you can list. I do.

I have, as I said many pages ago, my own personal experiences and my life. That is all I need for a personal belief. After all, it is not as if I am rying to convince others that my belief is the only right one, nor am I trying to denigrate other people's beliefs.

You have personal experiences with something that is intangible and did not come from the material world and is not sentient? I call bullshit on that.

Not what I said. I have had personal experiences that led me to believe in the incorporeal. I have seen no evidence that it originated in the corporeal.

The incorporeal that isn’t sentient and did not originate from the material world? What ever could that possibly be?

Since it cannot be studied, I don't know what it is.

This just keeps getting better and better.

 

[ding]

You are missing the point you literally have no basis for your belief that you can list. I do.

I have, as I said many pages ago, my own personal experiences and my life. That is all I need for a personal belief. After all, it is not as if I am rying to convince others that my belief is the only right one, nor am I trying to denigrate other people's beliefs.

You have personal experiences with something that is intangible and did not come from the material world and is not sentient? I call bullshit on that.

Not what I said. I have had personal experiences that led me to believe in the incorporeal. I have seen no evidence that it originated in the corporeal.

The incorporeal that isn’t sentient and did not originate from the material world? What ever could that possibly be?

Since it cannot be studied, I don't know what it is.

You don’t know what it is but you believe it isn’t sentient or from the material world or corporeal and you can’t explain why you believe any of those things. Is it Peter Pan?

 

[WinterBorn]

I have, as I said many pages ago, my own personal experiences and my life. That is all I need for a personal belief. After all, it is not as if I am rying to convince others that my belief is the only right one, nor am I trying to denigrate other people's beliefs.

You have personal experiences with something that is intangible and did not come from the material world and is not sentient? I call bullshit on that.

Not what I said. I have had personal experiences that led me to believe in the incorporeal. I have seen no evidence that it originated in the corporeal.

The incorporeal that isn’t sentient and did not originate from the material world? What ever could that possibly be?

Since it cannot be studied, I don't know what it is.

This just keeps getting better and better.

What I have been saying has stayed the same.

 

[ding]

You have personal experiences with something that is intangible and did not come from the material world and is not sentient? I call bullshit on that.

Not what I said. I have had personal experiences that led me to believe in the incorporeal. I have seen no evidence that it originated in the corporeal.

The incorporeal that isn’t sentient and did not originate from the material world? What ever could that possibly be?

Since it cannot be studied, I don't know what it is.

This just keeps getting better and better.

What I have been saying has stayed the same.

Yes, illogical.

 

[WinterBorn]

I have, as I said many pages ago, my own personal experiences and my life. That is all I need for a personal belief. After all, it is not as if I am rying to convince others that my belief is the only right one, nor am I trying to denigrate other people's beliefs.

You have personal experiences with something that is intangible and did not come from the material world and is not sentient? I call bullshit on that.

Not what I said. I have had personal experiences that led me to believe in the incorporeal. I have seen no evidence that it originated in the corporeal.

The incorporeal that isn’t sentient and did not originate from the material world? What ever could that possibly be?

Since it cannot be studied, I don't know what it is.

You don’t know what it is but you believe it isn’t sentient or from the material world or corporeal and you can’t explain why you believe any of those things. Is it Peter Pan?

I am not assuming it is sentient because there is no sign of sentience. I am not assuming it came from the corporeal because I see no sign of that either. I do not make assumptions on the sentience or origins because I do not know and, being incorporeal, it cannot be empirically studied.

 

[ding]

But has it stayed the same? At first it was a lifeforce. Then it wasn’t.

 

[WinterBorn]

Not what I said. I have had personal experiences that led me to believe in the incorporeal. I have seen no evidence that it originated in the corporeal.

The incorporeal that isn’t sentient and did not originate from the material world? What ever could that possibly be?

Since it cannot be studied, I don't know what it is.

This just keeps getting better and better.

What I have been saying has stayed the same.

Yes, illogical.

Can you scientifically study the incorporeal?

 

[ding]

You have personal experiences with something that is intangible and did not come from the material world and is not sentient? I call bullshit on that.

Not what I said. I have had personal experiences that led me to believe in the incorporeal. I have seen no evidence that it originated in the corporeal.

The incorporeal that isn’t sentient and did not originate from the material world? What ever could that possibly be?

Since it cannot be studied, I don't know what it is.

You don’t know what it is but you believe it isn’t sentient or from the material world or corporeal and you can’t explain why you believe any of those things. Is it Peter Pan?

I am not assuming it is sentient because there is no sign of sentience. I am not assuming it came from the corporeal because I see no sign of that either. I do not make assumptions on the sentience or origins because I do not know and, being incorporeal, it cannot be empirically studied.

Ummm... everything you have said about it are assumptions. And now you want to be selective on the assumptions you are making?

Sounds like bias to me.

 

[WinterBorn]

But has it stayed the same? At first it was a lifeforce. Then it wasn’t.

I have seen no evidence of change.

When the term "life force" was first used in our discussion, I did not argue it because I thought it inconsequential. Just semantics. But then, you thought it was to be some great "GOTCHA" by turning it from "life force" into "lifeforce" and finally into "soul".

So I stick with "incorporeal" and leave it at that. You somehow think changing words means something. And even when I call you on it, you won't admit it. When you insisted that you used my words verbatim, and I compared the two quotes, you still did not admit any wrongdoing. Your dishonesty has been apparent through much of this thread and others.

 

[ding]

The incorporeal that isn’t sentient and did not originate from the material world? What ever could that possibly be?

Since it cannot be studied, I don't know what it is.

This just keeps getting better and better.

What I have been saying has stayed the same.

Yes, illogical.

Can you scientifically study the incorporeal?

Then why believe it in the first place? Oh, because if you didn’t that would make you a materialist?

At some point you are going to have to face the facts. You are a materialist.

 

[ding]

But has it stayed the same? At first it was a lifeforce. Then it wasn’t.

I have seen no evidence of change.

When the term "life force" was first used in our discussion, I did not argue it because I thought it inconsequential. Just semantics. But then, you thought it was to be some great "GOTCHA" by turning it from "life force" into "lifeforce" and finally into "soul".

So I stick with "incorporeal" and leave it at that. You somehow think changing words means something. And even when I call you on it, you won't admit it. When you insisted that you used my words verbatim, and I compared the two quotes, you still did not admit any wrongdoing. Your dishonesty has been apparent through much of this thread and others.

Why don’t you pull that conversation up.

 

[WinterBorn]

Not what I said. I have had personal experiences that led me to believe in the incorporeal. I have seen no evidence that it originated in the corporeal.

The incorporeal that isn’t sentient and did not originate from the material world? What ever could that possibly be?

Since it cannot be studied, I don't know what it is.

You don’t know what it is but you believe it isn’t sentient or from the material world or corporeal and you can’t explain why you believe any of those things. Is it Peter Pan?

I am not assuming it is sentient because there is no sign of sentience. I am not assuming it came from the corporeal because I see no sign of that either. I do not make assumptions on the sentience or origins because I do not know and, being incorporeal, it cannot be empirically studied.

Ummm... everything you have said about it are assumptions. And now you want to be selective on the assumptions you are making?

Sounds like bias to me.

As I have said, over and over, experiences in my life have shown the incorporeal to be believeable to me. The rest of what you ask, sentience and origins, has not been apparent to me.

There has been nothing illogical or inconsistent in my statements. I do not believe in god, therefore I am an atheist. I believe in the incorporeal that did not originate in the corporeal, so I am not a materialist. Nothing has changed in my beliefs, despite almost 100 pages of discussion.

 

[ding]

There is literally no such thing as an atheist who does not believe that everything proceeds from the material world.

 

[WinterBorn]

Since it cannot be studied, I don't know what it is.

This just keeps getting better and better.

What I have been saying has stayed the same.

Yes, illogical.

Can you scientifically study the incorporeal?

Then why believe it in the first place? Oh, because if you didn’t that would make you a materialist?

At some point you are going to have to face the facts. You are a materialist.

You have continued to say you can prove things, but I would not accept them. I have stated my reasons for believing certain things numerus times, and yet you refuse to accept them. Hypocrisy?

I have stated why I believe the way I do. Nothing you have said provides any valid reason for me to change that.

 

[ding]

The incorporeal that isn’t sentient and did not originate from the material world? What ever could that possibly be?

Since it cannot be studied, I don't know what it is.

You don’t know what it is but you believe it isn’t sentient or from the material world or corporeal and you can’t explain why you believe any of those things. Is it Peter Pan?

I am not assuming it is sentient because there is no sign of sentience. I am not assuming it came from the corporeal because I see no sign of that either. I do not make assumptions on the sentience or origins because I do not know and, being incorporeal, it cannot be empirically studied.

Ummm... everything you have said about it are assumptions. And now you want to be selective on the assumptions you are making?

Sounds like bias to me.

As I have said, over and over, experiences in my life have shown the incorporeal to be believeable to me. The rest of what you ask, sentience and origins, has not been apparent to me.

There has been nothing illogical or inconsistent in my statements. I do not believe in god, therefore I am an atheist. I believe in the incorporeal that did not originate in the corporeal, so I am not a materialist. Nothing has changed in my beliefs, despite almost 100 pages of discussion.

What experiences and why did it lead you to believe in the intangible that did not originate from the material world and was not sentient?

 

[ding]

This just keeps getting better and better.

What I have been saying has stayed the same.

Yes, illogical.

Can you scientifically study the incorporeal?

Then why believe it in the first place? Oh, because if you didn’t that would make you a materialist?

At some point you are going to have to face the facts. You are a materialist.

You have continued to say you can prove things, but I would not accept them. I have stated my reasons for believing certain things numerus times, and yet you refuse to accept them. Hypocrisy?

I have stated why I believe the way I do. Nothing you have said provides any valid reason for me to change that.

Actually you haven’t.

 

[WinterBorn]

There is literally no such thing as an atheist who does not believe that everything proceeds from the material world.

Only to someone who insists his definition of "atheist" is superior to that of the Oxford English dictionary and Merriam-Webster.

The only definition I have seen by those two (the best and most accepted dictionaries for the English language) is someone who does not believe in god. Nothing I have said I believe in requires a god in order to exist.

So you are literally making up your argument.

 

[ding]

There is literally no such thing as an atheist who does not believe that everything proceeds from the material world.

Only to someone who insists his definition of "atheist" is superior to that of the Oxford English dictionary and Merriam-Webster.

The only definition I have seen by those two (the best and most accepted dictionaries for the English language) is someone who does not believe in god. Nothing I have said I believe in requires a god in order to exist.

So you are literally making up your argument.

Atheists don’t believe in spirits if they did they would have to recognize the possibility of God who is spirit.

 

[WinterBorn]

What I have been saying has stayed the same.

Yes, illogical.

Can you scientifically study the incorporeal?

Then why believe it in the first place? Oh, because if you didn’t that would make you a materialist?

At some point you are going to have to face the facts. You are a materialist.

You have continued to say you can prove things, but I would not accept them. I have stated my reasons for believing certain things numerus times, and yet you refuse to accept them. Hypocrisy?

I have stated why I believe the way I do. Nothing you have said provides any valid reason for me to change that.

Actually you haven’t.

Yes, I have. I have stated that it was my life experiences and my study. The fact that I have not described those life experiences in detail does not change that.