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

[TheyCallMeDavid]

Hello. I would like to debate this topic. Im looking for a Debate Partner who will take the affirmative position that Atheisms post-modern ideologies/constructs, etc... are acceptable / beneficial in a sociological sense for a well-functioning Society . The Person can offer support for this as well as showing dissent from Christianity as the answer if he/she desires to . I on the other hand will show support for Christianity being THE best for a Society while showing dissent toward Atheistic Post Modernism . If any specific questions are asked during the debate, it is mandatory that they be answered by each Debater instead of overlooking them.

My Debate Partner will go first in the Debate . There will be 3 posts made by both Parties and each post can be up to 5,000 words if needed. All other standard CF Debate rules apply. The Debate can be started based on your time frame and I am available immediately if need be.

If interested, please respond in this thread and notify me via PM so im sure to get it.

Thank you. David.

 

[BL2KTN]

Atheism has just as many ideologies/constructs to debate as aunicornism.

 

[TheyCallMeDavid]

Atheism has just as many ideologies/constructs to debate as aunicornism.

Yes, there are some to Atheism. Afterall, its a secular religion from a sociological aspect and a religion carries with it ideologies and constructs. So, are you interested in the Debate or are you a Goader which is against CF rules (?)

 

[Strathos]

I'm pretty sure that you'll need to more clearly define what these ideologies are and why they are exclusive to atheism.

 

[TheyCallMeDavid]

I'm pretty sure that you'll need to more clearly define what these ideologies are and why they are exclusive to atheism.

I certainly shall., but in the Debate and not beforehand.

 

[BL2KTN]

So, are you interested in the Debate or are you a Goader which is against CF rules (?)

I am an individual completely unimpressed with your statements. The phrase "secular religion" is an oxymoron.

 

[Strathos]

I certainly shall., but in the Debate and not beforehand.

Why would anyone agree to a debate if they don't know what they're supposed to be debating?

 

[mark kennedy]

Hello. I would like to debate this topic. Im looking for a Debate Partner who will take the affirmative position that Atheisms post-modern ideologies/constructs, etc... are acceptable / beneficial in a sociological sense for a well-functioning Society . The Person can offer support for this as well as showing dissent from Christianity as the answer if he/she desires to . I on the other hand will show support for Christianity being THE best for a Society while showing dissent toward Atheistic Post Modernism . If any specific questions are asked during the debate, it is mandatory that they be answered by each Debater instead of overlooking them.

My Debate Partner will go first in the Debate . There will be 3 posts made by both Parties and each post can be up to 5,000 words if needed. All other standard CF Debate rules apply. The Debate can be started based on your time frame and I am available immediately if need be.

If interested, please respond in this thread and notify me via PM so im sure to get it.

Thank you. David.

They never argue like that, there are actually a lot of points to be made from an Atheistic perspective. What you will invariably get is ambiguity. I'd suggest you include definitions in the opening for key terms, especially a term like 'Post Modern', most atheists wouldn't use a phrase like that.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[TheyCallMeDavid]

I am an individual completely unimpressed with your statements. The phrase "secular religion" is an oxymoron.

Then there was no reason for you to respond to this proposal thread , and you should have either bypassed it, or, disregarded it after reading its content.

 

[TheyCallMeDavid]

Why would anyone agree to a debate if they don't know what they're supposed to be debating?

Ive made it quite clear what my Partners position would be in the debate and what is expected from him/her. The rest gets discovered during the debate ; afterall....thats what debating information/concepts/and positions are all about which get brought up during discussion.

If you are not interested , then you may decline my proposal .

 

[TheyCallMeDavid]

They never argue like that, there are actually a lot of points to be made from an Atheistic perspective. What you will invariably get is ambiguity. I'd suggest you include definitions in the opening for key terms, especially a term like 'Post Modern', most atheists wouldn't use a phrase like that.

Grace and peace,
Mark

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.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Can I take the position that atheism doesn't have any post-modern ideologies (or any ideologies really)?

The atheists on this site have discussed this quite a bit lately and I don't recall any atheists claiming an ideology that's a part of atheism.

 

[TheyCallMeDavid]

Can I take the position that atheism doesn't have any post-modern ideologies (or any ideologies really)?

The atheists on this site have discussed this quite a bit lately and I don't recall any atheists claiming an ideology that's a part of atheism.

If you are willing to debate, you can share anything you like concerning the subject matter and from any angle you desire . You wont be restricted in what you want to share so long as you stay on general topic , but ill still be maintaining my viewpoint and offering substantiation for it.

With you thinking your a Moral Relativist, I believe this debate is right up your alley. Plus, we touched on it lightly in the last debate you and I had recently.

 

[BL2KTN]

Then there was no reason for you to respond to this proposal thread , and you should have either bypassed it, or, disregarded it after reading its content.

I'm free to provide my thoughts on proposed debates, whether I wish to be directly participatory or not. I should have done exactly what I wished to do, which is what I did. I think anybody accepting a debate with you will find the format ridiculously long (5,000 words - seriously), and three rounds too short for any meaningful back-and-forth. I also think that based on prior debates I've seen from you, subjective bias against your opponent will play a huge part in the discourse. Even the proposal you have given is intrinsically biased from the very beginning (assuming that atheism has ideologies).

 

[Ana the Ist]

If you are willing to debate, you can share anything you like concerning the subject matter and from any angle you desire . You wont be restricted in what you want to share so long as you stay on general topic , but ill still be maintaining my viewpoint and offering substantiation for it.

With you thinking your a Moral Relativist, I believe this debate is right up your alley. Plus, we touched on it lightly in the last debate you and I had recently.

I'm a moral relativist...but it doesn't have anything to do with my atheism. I suppose we could do the debate, but if my position is simply that atheism has no intrinsic ideologies...it's going to be a rather boring debate. I don't see how you're going to be able to prove an ideology is born out of atheism.

 

[quatona]

Hello. I would like to debate this topic. Im looking for a Debate Partner who will take the affirmative position that Atheisms post-modern ideologies/constructs, etc... are acceptable / beneficial in a sociological sense for a well-functioning Society .

I predict you´ll have to look long and hard for someone who holds this position.
I predict that you would even have to look long and hard for someone who thinks that atheism holds any ideology at all (even if it isn´t speciified as absurdly as the position you would prefer someone to hold).

 

[BL2KTN]

I predict just the appearance of this debate makes it more difficult to find the worthwhile formal debates on the page.

 

[Strathos]

Ive made it quite clear what my Partners position would be in the debate and what is expected from him/her. The rest gets discovered during the debate ; afterall....thats what debating information/concepts/and positions are all about which get brought up during discussion.

If you are not interested , then you may decline my proposal .

I never considered accepting it in the first place. I'm just curious about it because I don't understand what, specifically, you are talking about.

 

[Gladius]

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.

 

[BL2KTN]

You're new. You should go read the other formal debates with JustCallMeDavid before you jump in.