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

[ding]

Let’s take this debates to the bull ring.

Do you accept the challenge?

Sure- I will go set that up right now.

I can't wait to see your "position."

You do realize you need to have a position which states what you believe something is rather than an argument against someone else's position. Because an argument against someone else's position really isn't a position. It's an argument against someone else having a belief.

Thanks in advance for proving my point about atheism and critical theory BTW.

Wot?

Bull Ring - Ding: Genesis 2 refers to atoms when it says Dust

Why are you trying to re-write the Genesis fable?

If the men who wrote the Bibles weren’t corrected by the gods, then the gods apparently were fine with the wording.

I'm not. The first five books of the Bible (known as the Torah) were written by Moses - an adopted son of the king of Egypt - in approximately 1400 B.C.. These five books focus on the beginning of the nation of Israel; but the first 11 chapters of the Torah records the history that all nations have in common. These allegorical accounts of the history of the world had been passed down from generation to generation orally for thousands of years. Moses did not write the first 11 chapters of the Bible. Moses was the first Hebrew to record them.

 

[Hollie]

Sure- I will go set that up right now.

I can't wait to see your "position."

You do realize you need to have a position which states what you believe something is rather than an argument against someone else's position. Because an argument against someone else's position really isn't a position. It's an argument against someone else having a belief.

Thanks in advance for proving my point about atheism and critical theory BTW.

Wot?

Bull Ring - Ding: Genesis 2 refers to atoms when it says Dust

Why are you trying to re-write the Genesis fable?

If the men who wrote the Bibles weren’t corrected by the gods, then the gods apparently were fine with the wording.

I'm not. The first five books of the Bible (known as the Torah) were written by Moses - an adopted son of the king of Egypt - in approximately 1400 B.C.. These five books focus on the beginning of the nation of Israel; but the first 11 chapters of the Torah records the history that all nations have in common. These allegorical accounts of the history of the world had been passed down from generation to generation orally for thousands of years. Moses did not write the first 11 chapters of the Bible. Moses was the first Hebrew to record them.

That’s quite a sidestep with your usual cut and paste spam.

Why would the gods have allowed the Bibles to contain such an egregious error?

 

[Mindful]

Sure- I will go set that up right now.

I can't wait to see your "position."

You do realize you need to have a position which states what you believe something is rather than an argument against someone else's position. Because an argument against someone else's position really isn't a position. It's an argument against someone else having a belief.

Thanks in advance for proving my point about atheism and critical theory BTW.

Wot?

Bull Ring - Ding: Genesis 2 refers to atoms when it says Dust

Why are you trying to re-write the Genesis fable?

If the men who wrote the Bibles weren’t corrected by the gods, then the gods apparently were fine with the wording.

I'm not. The first five books of the Bible (known as the Torah) were written by Moses - an adopted son of the king of Egypt - in approximately 1400 B.C.. These five books focus on the beginning of the nation of Israel; but the first 11 chapters of the Torah records the history that all nations have in common. These allegorical accounts of the history of the world had been passed down from generation to generation orally for thousands of years. Moses did not write the first 11 chapters of the Bible. Moses was the first Hebrew to record them.

What language were they written in?

 

[Karl Rand]

Why are you trying to re-write the Genesis fable?
If the men who wrote the Bibles weren’t corrected by the gods, then the gods apparently were fine with the wording.

That’s the most amazingly illogical assertion I’ve encountered all year. Should get a Oscar for absolute silliness. Reminds me of the Jesuit ‘ logic' explaining the long standing survival of the Roman Church, despite a number of Popes being murderous monsters, being due to it being a divine institution consequently able to survive the machinations of Satan.

 

[denmark]

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?

You appear to be criticizing the “hard atheism” definition or perspective. I can agree with you on that somewhat.
However, i believe the “soft atheism” perspective that Colorado clearly described in Post #40 is most rational.

Atheism is no more a theory than a religion is. Hard atheism has no evidence, just like religions that i am aware of have none.
In philosophy/science, if one makes a claim, then it must be supported. Not the other way around, ie proving God does not exist.

 

[Karl Rand]

How could anyone provide proof of the non-existence of something that doesn’t exist?
If pure atheism is correct it can never satisfy the absurd demands for proof demanded by the religious.

 

[WinterBorn]

If it didn't originate from the material world and it didn't originate from the spiritual world, then it must have originated from winterborn's mind.

You are defining the spiritual world, not me. I said I do not believe it originated from the material world. If there are incorporeal things, that does not necessarily mean there are sentient spirits.

 

[denmark]

How could anyone provide proof of the non-existence of something that doesn’t exist?
If pure atheism is correct it can never satisfy the absurd demands for proof demanded by the religious.

A “hard or strong” atheist believes there is no God as claimed by a religion. However, how can they know their conclusion is correct, even if the claim is weak?

On the other hand, a “soft or weak” atheist is an agnostic who does not pretend to know anything without decent evidence. Therefore, they hold no belief on the claim.

 

[Karl Rand]

Why not put and end to this endless to and fro and just accept as a species we are all prone to being absolutely certain of things no nothing about at this point in our evolution?

 

[ding]

How could anyone provide proof of the non-existence of something that doesn’t exist?
If pure atheism is correct it can never satisfy the absurd demands for proof demanded by the religious.

A “hard or strong” atheist believes there is no God as claimed by a religion. However, how can they know their conclusion is correct, even if the claim is weak?

On the other hand, a “soft or weak” atheist is an agnostic who does not pretend to know anything without decent evidence. Therefore, they hold no belief on the claim.

I always thought an agnostic believed it isn’t possible to know.

 

[ding]

If it didn't originate from the material world and it didn't originate from the spiritual world, then it must have originated from winterborn's mind.

You are defining the spiritual world, not me. I said I do not believe it originated from the material world. If there are incorporeal things, that does not necessarily mean there are sentient spirits.

I am trying to explain to you that your beliefs are mutually exclusive.

 

[ding]

How could anyone provide proof of the non-existence of something that doesn’t exist?
If pure atheism is correct it can never satisfy the absurd demands for proof demanded by the religious.

Your first sentence shows your bias.

Your second sentence shows your blindness.

 

[Mindful]

Why not put and end to this endless to and fro and just accept as a species we are all prone to being absolutely certain of things no nothing about at this point in our evolution?

 

[Mindful]

How could anyone provide proof of the non-existence of something that doesn’t exist?
If pure atheism is correct it can never satisfy the absurd demands for proof demanded by the religious.

Your first sentence shows your bias.

Your second sentence shows your blindness.

A blissful state to be in.

 

[ding]

How could anyone provide proof of the non-existence of something that doesn’t exist?
If pure atheism is correct it can never satisfy the absurd demands for proof demanded by the religious.

Your first sentence shows your bias.

Your second sentence shows your blindness.

A blissful state to be in.

For some.

 

[WinterBorn]

If it didn't originate from the material world and it didn't originate from the spiritual world, then it must have originated from winterborn's mind.

You are defining the spiritual world, not me. I said I do not believe it originated from the material world. If there are incorporeal things, that does not necessarily mean there are sentient spirits.

I am trying to explain to you that your beliefs are mutually exclusive.

And I am trying to explain to you that they are not. I simply believe that not all incorporeal things are god.

 

[ding]

If it didn't originate from the material world and it didn't originate from the spiritual world, then it must have originated from winterborn's mind.

You are defining the spiritual world, not me. I said I do not believe it originated from the material world. If there are incorporeal things, that does not necessarily mean there are sentient spirits.

I am trying to explain to you that your beliefs are mutually exclusive.

And I am trying to explain to you that they are not. I simply believe that not all incorporeal things are god.

Ok, but other than spirits and such I can’t think of anything which is incorporeal that isn’t from the material world.

To be considered a believer in dualism beliefs in spirits are required. Believing in the incorporeal won’t make you a believer in dualism.

So you would be considered a materialist because you don’t believe in spirits.

 

[denmark]

How could anyone provide proof of the non-existence of something that doesn’t exist?
If pure atheism is correct it can never satisfy the absurd demands for proof demanded by the religious.

A “hard or strong” atheist believes there is no God as claimed by a religion. However, how can they know their conclusion is correct, even if the claim is weak?

On the other hand, a “soft or weak” atheist is an agnostic who does not pretend to know anything without decent evidence. Therefore, they hold no belief on the claim.

I always thought an agnostic believed it isn’t possible to know.

Agnosticism simply means “I don’t know until I know” (with evidence).
Regarding religion, “agnostic“ means that you neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of God.

 

[ding]

How could anyone provide proof of the non-existence of something that doesn’t exist?
If pure atheism is correct it can never satisfy the absurd demands for proof demanded by the religious.

A “hard or strong” atheist believes there is no God as claimed by a religion. However, how can they know their conclusion is correct, even if the claim is weak?

On the other hand, a “soft or weak” atheist is an agnostic who does not pretend to know anything without decent evidence. Therefore, they hold no belief on the claim.

I always thought an agnostic believed it isn’t possible to know.

Agnosticism simply means “I don’t know until I know” (with evidence).
Regarding religion, “agnostic“ means that you neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of God.

What evidence would you expect for the supernatural?

 

[denmark]

How could anyone provide proof of the non-existence of something that doesn’t exist?
If pure atheism is correct it can never satisfy the absurd demands for proof demanded by the religious.

A “hard or strong” atheist believes there is no God as claimed by a religion. However, how can they know their conclusion is correct, even if the claim is weak?

On the other hand, a “soft or weak” atheist is an agnostic who does not pretend to know anything without decent evidence. Therefore, they hold no belief on the claim.

I always thought an agnostic believed it isn’t possible to know.

Agnosticism simply means “I don’t know until I know” (with evidence).
Regarding religion, “agnostic“ means that you neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of God.

What evidence would you expect for the supernatural?

How can a natural mind perceive something “supernatural” unless it’s imagined?
A scientist can speculate that “dark matter” exists to resolve natural/observable patterns, but a specific supernatural concept does not fit into anything observable.