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

[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.

It seems as though you believe you’ve scored some point against atheism using the term “critical theory”, but I’m afraid you haven’t. Atheism isn’t a practice, it’s a rejection of a practice.

I have to agree with you that there is no affirmative case for atheism. The point of your OP is that atheism has no positive argument for itself and all arguments for it are actually critiques of another position. That is true because one cannot prove a negative.

But that fact isn’t a mark against atheism anymore than it is against any other belief. For example, I don’t believe in big foot. Does that mean I am in a weaker position than one who does believe in big foot? I am not a practitioner of Islam - I don’t believe in Allah or the claims made by Muslims or their prophet Muhammed. Does that work against me in someway? No.

Until the claims of a religion or belief convince me of the veracity of those claims, I remain unconvinced. Simple as that.

Scored a point? It’s not a game. Just the nature of atheism. Atheists can only confirm their beliefs by criticizing the beliefs of others. They have no other options.

 

[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?

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.

It seems as though you believe you’ve scored some point against atheism using the term “critical theory”, but I’m afraid you haven’t. Atheism isn’t a practice, it’s a rejection of a practice.

I have to agree with you that there is no affirmative case for atheism. The point of your OP is that atheism has no positive argument for itself and all arguments for it are actually critiques of another position. That is true because one cannot prove a negative.

But that fact isn’t a mark against atheism anymore than it is against any other belief. For example, I don’t believe in big foot. Does that mean I am in a weaker position than one who does believe in big foot? I am not a practitioner of Islam - I don’t believe in Allah or the claims made by Muslims or their prophet Muhammed. Does that work against me in someway? No.

Until the claims of a religion or belief convince me of the veracity of those claims, I remain unconvinced. Simple as that.

Scored a point? It’s not a game. Just the nature of atheism. Atheists can only confirm their beliefs by criticizing the beliefs of others. They have no other options.

I don’t see atheists starting these threads

Only you

 

[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.

It seems as though you believe you’ve scored some point against atheism using the term “critical theory”, but I’m afraid you haven’t. Atheism isn’t a practice, it’s a rejection of a practice.

I have to agree with you that there is no affirmative case for atheism. The point of your OP is that atheism has no positive argument for itself and all arguments for it are actually critiques of another position. That is true because one cannot prove a negative.

But that fact isn’t a mark against atheism anymore than it is against any other belief. For example, I don’t believe in big foot. Does that mean I am in a weaker position than one who does believe in big foot? I am not a practitioner of Islam - I don’t believe in Allah or the claims made by Muslims or their prophet Muhammed. Does that work against me in someway? No.

Until the claims of a religion or belief convince me of the veracity of those claims, I remain unconvinced. Simple as that.

Scored a point? It’s not a game. Just the nature of atheism. Atheists can only confirm their beliefs by criticizing the beliefs of others. They have no other options.

I don’t see atheists starting these threads

Only you

Does me telling you what you see atheists doing offend you?

 

[rightwinger]

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.

It seems as though you believe you’ve scored some point against atheism using the term “critical theory”, but I’m afraid you haven’t. Atheism isn’t a practice, it’s a rejection of a practice.

I have to agree with you that there is no affirmative case for atheism. The point of your OP is that atheism has no positive argument for itself and all arguments for it are actually critiques of another position. That is true because one cannot prove a negative.

But that fact isn’t a mark against atheism anymore than it is against any other belief. For example, I don’t believe in big foot. Does that mean I am in a weaker position than one who does believe in big foot? I am not a practitioner of Islam - I don’t believe in Allah or the claims made by Muslims or their prophet Muhammed. Does that work against me in someway? No.

Until the claims of a religion or belief convince me of the veracity of those claims, I remain unconvinced. Simple as that.

Scored a point? It’s not a game. Just the nature of atheism. Atheists can only confirm their beliefs by criticizing the beliefs of others. They have no other options.

I don’t see atheists starting these threads

Only you

Does me telling you what you see atheists doing offend you?

Show me a thread of atheists attacking Christianity

You seem obsessed with those who do not find the nonsense you believe in to be credible

 

[ding]

Yes, atheism isn’t critical theory. The practice of atheism will never go beyond the practice of critical theory.

It seems as though you believe you’ve scored some point against atheism using the term “critical theory”, but I’m afraid you haven’t. Atheism isn’t a practice, it’s a rejection of a practice.

I have to agree with you that there is no affirmative case for atheism. The point of your OP is that atheism has no positive argument for itself and all arguments for it are actually critiques of another position. That is true because one cannot prove a negative.

But that fact isn’t a mark against atheism anymore than it is against any other belief. For example, I don’t believe in big foot. Does that mean I am in a weaker position than one who does believe in big foot? I am not a practitioner of Islam - I don’t believe in Allah or the claims made by Muslims or their prophet Muhammed. Does that work against me in someway? No.

Until the claims of a religion or belief convince me of the veracity of those claims, I remain unconvinced. Simple as that.

Scored a point? It’s not a game. Just the nature of atheism. Atheists can only confirm their beliefs by criticizing the beliefs of others. They have no other options.

I don’t see atheists starting these threads

Only you

Does me telling you what you see atheists doing offend you?

Show me a thread of atheists attacking Christianity

You seem obsessed with those who do not find the nonsense you believe in to be credible

Read almost any thread.

In fact you calling my beliefs nonsense proves my point.

It’s how you confirm your beliefs.

 

[well named]

It goes beyond a Christian God
It applies to all Gods

I think it makes sense to narrow down the conversation to specific concepts of God because the word is so polysemous, and if ding wants to discuss the epistemic status of theism then I think the discussion is necessarily going to depend on which ones you have in mind. I understand that most atheists will reject entire classes of God concepts which are all similar in various ways, but there are plenty of objections which will apply only to some subset.

So for example you can imagine a deistic concept of God as architect who creates the basic laws of physics but plays no other role in the world and is neither seen as omnipotent nor omni-benevolent, and who commands no moral injunctions. Arguments from the problem of evil are not really very important to this concept. Instead you'd probably end up arguing against it from principles of parsimony. That's just one example, you can think of others, e.g. God as Brahman or various pantheisms.

 

[rightwinger]

It seems as though you believe you’ve scored some point against atheism using the term “critical theory”, but I’m afraid you haven’t. Atheism isn’t a practice, it’s a rejection of a practice.

I have to agree with you that there is no affirmative case for atheism. The point of your OP is that atheism has no positive argument for itself and all arguments for it are actually critiques of another position. That is true because one cannot prove a negative.

But that fact isn’t a mark against atheism anymore than it is against any other belief. For example, I don’t believe in big foot. Does that mean I am in a weaker position than one who does believe in big foot? I am not a practitioner of Islam - I don’t believe in Allah or the claims made by Muslims or their prophet Muhammed. Does that work against me in someway? No.

Until the claims of a religion or belief convince me of the veracity of those claims, I remain unconvinced. Simple as that.

Scored a point? It’s not a game. Just the nature of atheism. Atheists can only confirm their beliefs by criticizing the beliefs of others. They have no other options.

I don’t see atheists starting these threads

Only you

Does me telling you what you see atheists doing offend you?

Show me a thread of atheists attacking Christianity

You seem obsessed with those who do not find the nonsense you believe in to be credible

Read almost any thread.

In fact you calling my beliefs nonsense proves my point.

It’s how you confirm your beliefs.

How many atheism threads have I started? Zero
Where have I started a thread attacking Christians?

 

[edthecynic]

If God is a creator......why did he stop?
Why isn’t he creating things every day?

He is! God creates evil every day, and twice on Sunday.
Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

 

[ding]

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.

Inflation theory is totally compatible with a creator. But this thread isn’t about that.

 

[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.

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

If that were true you wouldn’t be here discussing religion. Specifically, criticizing the beliefs of others.

It really is your only option to confirm your beliefs.

 

[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

What's "bizzare" is the ridiculous belief that everything came from nothing.

Did it? If the creation of space and time were in accordance to the laws of nature, specifically quantum mechanics and conservation, then the laws existed before space and time.

But this thread isn’t about that. This thread is about how atheists must attack and criticize religion to confirm their beliefs.

Which is exactly the behavior we see in this forum.

 

[ding]

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

Your practice of atheism is criticizing religion.

 

[anynameyouwish]

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.

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?

it is impossible for atheism to ever be any more than a critical theory of a man made superstition.

and religion will never be anything more than a man made superstition.

 

[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?

no.

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?

it is impossible for atheism to ever be any more than a critical theory of a man made superstition.

and religion will never be anything more than a man made superstition.

This isn’t the thread to debate that, bro.

And even if it were I don’t care enough to try to convince you. Believe and do as you wish.

 

[anynameyouwish]

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?

You claim knowledge of what there was before space and time. That's a magical assumption based on nothing.

So how else do you think the universe was created if not by following rules? Specifically the laws of quantum mechanics and the laws of conservation.

You really only have two options and it appears that you have chosen magic while I have chosen the laws of nature.

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?

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.

there is no affirmative case for religion.
The lack of evidence for a god constitutes pretty good evidence of atheism.

However.

Unlike YOU I do NOT demand that everyone MUST believe what I believe/

YOu can believe in any nonsense you choose!

I'll continue to be an atheist.

 

[ding]

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?

You claim knowledge of what there was before space and time. That's a magical assumption based on nothing.

So how else do you think the universe was created if not by following rules? Specifically the laws of quantum mechanics and the laws of conservation.

You really only have two options and it appears that you have chosen magic while I have chosen the laws of nature.

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?

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.

there is no affirmative case for religion.
The lack of evidence for a god constitutes pretty good evidence of atheism.

However.

Unlike YOU I do NOT demand that everyone MUST believe what I believe/

YOu can believe in any nonsense you choose!

I'll continue to be an atheist.

Also not the thread to discuss that.

Although I don’t know where you got the idea that I demand anything from anyone.

What part of believe anything you want did you not understand?

 

[rightwinger]

If God is a creator......why did he stop?
Why isn’t he creating things every day?

He is! God creates evil every day, and twice on Sunday.
Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Why hasn’t God created any new planets?
We could use a new moon

The animals here are getting boring. Why doesn’t he create new ones

 

[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

If that were true you wouldn’t be here discussing religion. Specifically, criticizing the beliefs of others.

It really is your only option to confirm your beliefs.

Your thread called out atheists
I just responded

Why are you so intimidated by atheists

 

[harmonica]

hahahahahahah
troll
and atheism is not even a ''real''/sensible/etc term because there is no god
for someone not to believe in a god, there has to be a god first

 

[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.

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

If that were true you wouldn’t be here discussing religion. Specifically, criticizing the beliefs of others.

It really is your only option to confirm your beliefs.

Your thread called out atheists
I just responded

This isn’t a call out thread.