Atheistic Post Modernism ideology/constructs/tenets are benefical for Societies

[mark kennedy]

Most professed Atheists ive encountered do use terms like Post Modernism. As for definitions to any term....im okay with whatever www.dictionary.com has to say on it as the standard. So should any Debate Partner.

Yes but the problem is that the meaning your dictionary source is using emphasizes art.

post·mod·ern·ism [pohst-mod-er-niz-uhm] ( sometimes initial capital letter ) any of a number of trends or movements in the arts and literature developing in the 1970s inreaction to or rejection of the dogma, principles, or practices of established modernism, especially a movement[bless and do not curse]in architecture and the decorative arts running counter to the practice and influence of the International Style and encouraging the use of elements from historical vernacular styles and often playful illusion, decoration, and complexity. www.dictionary.com​

Are you really interested in discussing art and architecture?

This part seems relevant:

...the 1970s inreaction to or rejection of the dogma, principles..​

That's the closest that definition gets to a conflict with Biblical Christianity.

What you will find, if you were to pursue it, is they are also referred to as deconstructionist. A lot the same way a person favors a 'strict construction' when they support the original intent of the Constitution. They are often referred to as liberal which makes sense, they are 'liberal' with regards to change regarding traditional views.

Debates are typically philosophical and when you debate philosophical topics the first order of business is to define your terms.

I personally favor a Renaissance approach that searches out the wisdom of the ancients and time tested patterns. At any rate, that's my two cents worth.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[TheyCallMeDavid]

Yes but the problem is that the meaning your dictionary source is using emphasizes art.

post·mod·ern·ism [pohst-mod-er-niz-uhm] ( sometimes initial capital letter ) any of a number of trends or movements in the arts and literature developing in the 1970s inreaction to or rejection of the dogma, principles, or practices of established modernism, especially a movement[bless and do not curse]in architecture and the decorative arts running counter to the practice and influence of the International Style and encouraging the use of elements from historical vernacular styles and often playful illusion, decoration, and complexity. www.dictionary.com
​

Are you really interested in discussing art and architecture?

This part seems relevant:

...the 1970s inreaction to or rejection of the dogma, principles..
​

That's the closest that definition gets to a conflict with Biblical Christianity.

What you will find, if you were to pursue it, is they are also referred to as deconstructionist. A lot the same way a person favors a 'strict construction' when they support the original intent of the Constitution. They are often referred to as liberal which makes sense, they are 'liberal' with regards to change regarding traditional views.

Debates are typically philosophical and when you debate philosophical topics the first order of business is to define your terms.

I personally favor a Renaissance approach that searches out the wisdom of the ancients and time tested patterns. At any rate, that's my two cents worth.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Then lets go with Secular Humanism, if that term is more palatable to you as it relates to Post Modernism .

 

[TheyCallMeDavid]

Hi David

I would be prepared to debate you on part of the proposed topic. For the reason that atheism is not an alternative sociological or moral idealogy, but merely the denial of the existence of Gods, we cannot debate why Atheism is superior to Christianity as regards to benefiting society.

Not many atheists claim that they don't believe in God because it benefits society. They might claim that the non-existence of religion would benefit society though (I do).

However we could debate your assertion that "Christianity is a socialogical beneficial idealogy" if you like.

I think we are talking semantics here ; so...how about you taking the affirmative position of (atheistic) Secular Humanism / (atheistic) Moral Relativism as it relates to sociology then ?

And I know of many professed Atheists who believe a Society minus God is more beneficial : Dawkins and Hitchens for example whos books explicitly state that all God-religions are and have been harmful toward Society ; add to them a great number of 'The New Atheists' who are more militant in their approach toward the extinction of Christianity. I suspect that they make up the great majority of professed common Atheists today considering what ive read in Discussion Forums , from books and tapes, and in person .

 

[quatona]

I think we are talking semantics here ; so...how about you taking the affirmative position of (atheistic) Secular Humanism / (atheistic) Moral Relativism as it relates to sociology then ? .

What point is in debating someone who thinks that differenciating between atheism, moral relativism, secular humanism and postmodernism is mere semantics?

 

[Gladius]

.......And I know of many professed Atheists who believe a Society minus God is more beneficial......

I believe that's almost what I proposed to debate. Although instead of all Gods, I narrowed it down to Christianity, on the basis that is what you initially proposed to contend (in the affirmative).

So rather than debate multiple topics, lets just have one about why Christianity is beneficial for society.

Forwarning though, that referencing the Bible or other 'words of god' for why he/it is beneficial is not going to be accepted by me as anything other than an appeal to ancient human superstitious opinion and circular argument. i.e. God is beneficial because God said so.

I'll be expecting you (as you have a right to expect me to argue the contrary) to argue how Christianity has been, and continues to be, of provable, observable, benefit to living humans on planet earth (so that rules out completely alleged post-death benefits, which is more circular argument).

One final suggestion. The definition of what is 'beneficial' from Christianity should be exclusive to Christianity. i.e. is not also available or attributable to any non-Christian cause, theology, philosophy or other human behaviour. Otherwise Christianity could just take credit for benefits to society that it's existence did not, and is not required to, deliver.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I believe that's almost what I proposed to debate. Although instead of all Gods, I narrowed it down to Christianity, on the basis that is what you initially proposed to contend (in the affirmative).

So rather than debate multiple topics, lets just have one about why Christianity is beneficial for society.

Forwarning though, that referencing the Bible or other 'words of god' for why he/it is beneficial is not going to be accepted by me as anything other than an appeal to ancient human superstitious opinion and circular argument. i.e. God is beneficial because God said so.

I'll be expecting you (as you have a right to expect me to argue the contrary) to argue how Christianity has been, and continues to be, of provable, observable, benefit to living humans on planet earth (so that rules out completely alleged post-death benefits, which is more circular argument).

One final suggestion. The definition of what is 'beneficial' from Christianity should be exclusive to Christianity. i.e. is not also available or attributable to any non-Christian cause, theology, philosophy or other human behaviour. Otherwise Christianity could just take credit for benefits to society that it's existence did not, and is not required to, deliver.

David, would you be good with this? If so, I'm thinking maybe 6 rounds (12 posts) around 1500 words each post. See where this leads as other topics may proceed from this one that could form the basis of future topics and discussions.

Mark
Staff Supervisor.

 

[TheyCallMeDavid]

What point is in debating someone who thinks that differenciating between atheism, moral relativism, secular humanism and postmodernism is mere semantics?

This thread is about proposing a debate for acceptance . Its not about questioning my views , challenging my views in this thread, or quasi-goading which is against CF rules. Please pass over this thread unless you are seriously interested in formal debate .

 

[TheyCallMeDavid]

I believe that's almost what I proposed to debate. Although instead of all Gods, I narrowed it down to Christianity, on the basis that is what you initially proposed to contend (in the affirmative).

So rather than debate multiple topics, lets just have one about why Christianity is beneficial for society.

Forwarning though, that referencing the Bible or other 'words of god' for why he/it is beneficial is not going to be accepted by me as anything other than an appeal to ancient human superstitious opinion and circular argument. i.e. God is beneficial because God said so.

I'll be expecting you (as you have a right to expect me to argue the contrary) to argue how Christianity has been, and continues to be, of provable, observable, benefit to living humans on planet earth (so that rules out completely alleged post-death benefits, which is more circular argument).

One final suggestion. The definition of what is 'beneficial' from Christianity should be exclusive to Christianity. i.e. is not also available or attributable to any non-Christian cause, theology, philosophy or other human behaviour. Otherwise Christianity could just take credit for benefits to society that it's existence did not, and is not required to, deliver.

Im looking for a Debate Partner who comes to the table honestly believing (as Dawkins does) that non-belief in Christianity is better for humanity and who can defend that position using past and current sociological evidences . If you are an avid Dawkins follower and have read his books, then you should be able to provide a tenable position if you personally think its true.

The Debate Im wanting consists mainly of the following :

1. An atheist who can definitively show that Christianity is not beneficial for society based on its concepts, principles, and ideologies .

2. An atheist who can show that atheistic Secular Humanism's tenets including Moral Relativism IS more beneficial for society.

3. Myself showing that Christianity is the highest benefit to society .

4. Myself showing that atheistic Secular Humanism has and is destroying the moral fabric of American Society in particular.

The only appeal I shall be making to the Bible is what it lists as Christianitys concepts/principles/ideals for correct, harmonious, and civil living ... and i wont be stating 'its true because the Bible says so or because God says so' ; conversely, I wouldn't expect you say that atheistic Secular Humanism played out in society is true because Humanist Manifestos 1/2 say so or because 'its something that is desired by a large part of the populace today thereby making it acceptable' (as my last Debate Partner inferred) .

Im not willing to deviate from these 4 Foundations above. Im looking for a more diehard professed Atheist who can substantiate atheism being good or better (than Christianity) for society., and I welcome a more hard-line / militant Dawkins approach from a Debate Partner. David.

If you feel that 3 posts each are insufficient to cover this ground, then im willing to pop for 6 posts each with you going first . Each post being up to 5,000 words in duration if needed.

 

[BL2KTN]

I tell you what, you agree to six rounds (that's six posts for each of us) with a limit of 1,000 words and I'll take you on. I'm a deist, but I've got no problem showing how Christianity damages society, even if that seems completely contrary to common sense.

 

[TheyCallMeDavid]

I tell you what, you agree to six rounds (that's six posts for each of us) with a limit of 1,000 words and I'll take you on. I'm a deist, but I've got no problem showing how Christianity damages society, even if that seems completely contrary to common sense.

Ill go with you IF I cant find a hardline Atheist , as im wanting to show how atheistic ideology has completely ruined American Society in the last few decades and want to see how the professed Atheist refutes that.

Lets give it another 2 weeks to see if a staunch Athiest comes along first.

 

[BL2KTN]

Well, I'm atheistic to your specific god.

 

[Gladius]

Im looking for a Debate Partner who comes to the table honestly believing (as Dawkins does) that non-belief in Christianity is better for humanity and who can defend that position using past and current sociological evidences .

I am absolutely ready, willing and able to argue this position. I thought that's what I offered you previously.


If you are an avid Dawkins follower and have read his books, then you should be able to provide a tenable position if you personally think its true.

See above ^^

I am not an avid anyone follower, however I have read Dawkins, and several other athiest, Christian, Buddhist, and Hindu writers.

The Debate Im wanting consists mainly of the following :

1. An atheist who can definitively show that Christianity is not beneficial for society based on its concepts, principles, and ideologies .

That's precisely what I propose to debate you on.

2. An atheist who can show that atheistic Secular Humanism's tenets including Moral Relativism IS more beneficial for society.

I'm not a humanist, and my position on moral relativism is that it is a definition of all morality including Christian morality, but that is entirely a different debate topic.

3. Myself showing that Christianity is the highest benefit to society .

Agreed.

4. Myself showing that atheistic Secular Humanism has and is destroying the moral fabric of American Society in particular.

Happy for you to argue this, but given your earlier premises it would be more consistent for you to argue that the decline of Christianity is destroying American society. However, I'm an Australian, so I have no first hand knowledge of whether the moral fabric of American society is being destroyed or not. I am aware of the successful legislation to legalize gay marriage in your country, which does make some U.S. States more progressive than my own country, but arguably following many other parts of the world including the UK..

The only appeal I shall be making to the Bible is what it lists as Christianitys concepts/principles/ideals for correct, harmonious, and civil living ... and i wont be stating 'its true because the Bible says so or because God says so' ; conversely, I wouldn't expect you say that atheistic Secular Humanism played out in society is true because Humanist Manifestos 1/2 say so or because 'its something that is desired by a large part of the populace today thereby making it acceptable' (as my last Debate Partner inferred) .

Im not willing to deviate from these 4 Foundations above. Im looking for a more diehard professed Atheist who can substantiate atheism being good or better (than Christianity) for society., and I welcome a more hard-line / militant Dawkins approach from a Debate Partner. David.

Hard-line, militant, die-hard atheist eh? You mean a rude and pompous one?
Ok, I might not be what you're after. I tend more towards evidence based reason with a coloring of satire and sarcasm.

If you feel that 3 posts each are insufficient to cover this ground, then im willing to pop for 6 posts each with you going first . Each post being up to 5,000 words in duration if needed.

Good luck.

 

[TheyCallMeDavid]

Well, I'm atheistic to your specific god.

No problem ; im atheistic to yours as well.

 

[TheyCallMeDavid]

Good luck.

Thanks for responding. Id need my Debate Partner to be very familiar with American Culture past and present and who is up on all the social ills our nation is facing because im going to be capitalizing on this and showing that atheistic constructs are the direct cause . Therefore, I need a staunch American Atheist whos been thru the last few decades living in America and who will at least be honest enough to admit the moral decline that is so prevalent and obvious as a starting point to the debate . This will be the point of reference . If I lived in Australia like yourself, then id say lets go at it.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Bumping this.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Bumping this to see if we have any more interest...

Mark