Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

The problem of New Christianity

Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 1:43:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm just watching some New Christians debate against Atheists, but the atheists who focus on other views, such as Singer against D'Souza, but moreso Singer in general, I am starting to think: "Is D'Souza actually attacking what Singer thinks, or his he stating what some New Atheists think, and saying that is what Singer thinks?" It seems that D'Souza has misrepresented everything Singer believes, by pretending he is a New Atheist. Is the counterculture of New Christianity, in essence, being hypocritical in this case, and strawmanning and generalising atheism?
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 2:33:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: nothing is new, they are just evolving inevatibilies. Names are name. Its the same old sh!t. Athiems really came to be in a post Christainity/mediavel sense. From the Enlightment age. And will continue to increase the more we learn about how the universe works. God had always be a default explanation. The Gap filler. The more we go back in any civilation the more, Godlike explanation we have. aka God=ignorance.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 3:11:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/31/2012 3:10:27 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
What is "New Christianity"?

The counterculture to New Atheism. Should have probably been more explicit on that front.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 4:05:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: but now you see it just the same thing. I personally think Religious has to go eventually if we are to gather as one people and work together as a planet. Its my Dream well John Lennons first. lol IMAGINE.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 4:25:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/31/2012 4:05:37 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Hitler: but now you see it just the same thing. I personally think Jews have to go eventually if we are to gather as one people and work together as a planet. Its my Dream well John Lennons first. lol IMAGINE.

Just replace a few words, and you got yourselves a reason to exterminate us.. lol nice.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 4:31:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/31/2012 3:11:29 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/31/2012 3:10:27 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
What is "New Christianity"?

The counterculture to New Atheism. Should have probably been more explicit on that front.

So like a group of Christians who dedicate themselves to countering and debating New Atheists?

Sorry, I'm not familiar with the term.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 5:28:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/31/2012 4:25:40 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 7/31/2012 4:05:37 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Hitler: but now you see it just the same thing. I personally think Jews have to go eventually if we are to gather as one people and work together as a planet. Its my Dream well John Lennons first. lol IMAGINE.

Just replace a few words, and you got yourselves a reason to exterminate us.. lol nice.

well, replace a few words and you got anything. Example:

But now you see it just the same thing. I personally think One Direction have to go eventually if we are to gather as one people and work together as a planet. Its my Dream. Well, John Lennons afterwards.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 5:34:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/31/2012 4:25:40 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 7/31/2012 4:05:37 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Hitler: but now you see it just the same thing. I personally think Jews have to go eventually if we are to gather as one people and work together as a planet. Its my Dream well John Lennons first. lol IMAGINE.

The Fool: Firstly its a fail. He was a Christain and concidered one before the Holocaust he uses alot of the concepts in his speaches. And there is no other reason to not like the Jews in the first place. IN fact its the ONLY reason. IN Canada I couldn't tell the difference from a Jew unless they were wearing small hat. They are genetcally caucasion. There is only ONE REASON. AND WE ALL KNOW THAT REASON. IT is the ONLY REASON of why they would be hated in the first place. ALl the other stereotypes came about AFTER that special hate was inplaced. ANd we all know why!

Just replace a few words, and you got yourselves a reason to exterminate us.. lol nice.

The Fool: Exterminate!. Where do you see harm in anyways. in what I said. I think everybody want the good. We are more or less just ignorance on how to achieve it. I think evil comes out of Rationality. To sin is to make a mistake. But that okay, we learn from your mistakes. I think People are GOOD in nature. WE are not merly selfish. We are the only MORAL animals and its because of our Rationality. I believe that there is teleology in life and in evolution. I have good arguments to support it. I think Life is a team. while other materials in the unvierse are of entropy and becoming chaotic. Life is its contradiction. We are getting more complete, and advanced, the Human brain/mind is the best technology we have yet. I love you as I do anybody. I see you as confused, ignorance.(I don;t mean in an insulting way. I wish you good. But if you think God is the Good or the moral. We then you never could now what moral and THE GOOD in itself anyways. You have to know these well before God. To even know if God is really the Good or not.
I believe its an illusion we have created for are selves in the past. To save us from our fears. We fear that we are here with not purpose other then to die. We really want the GOOD that is why we make up concepts like after death define retribution. We create mythological places of happiness and hel. We shroud our selves in mythological illusion. To explain it all, but its really sign of a scared child. a sign of how we would like it be. The easy way to not do anyhthing about it but pretend. To base anything on faith alone is to give up the Quest of knowledge for part of the quest is figuring out the purpose not just giving up and saying there not purpose. That LAZZY. Seconldy you can never know what is not. because it doesn't exist. We could only know what IS. But to actually figure things out we must go the longer road. We must grow up, and figure it all out are selves.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 6:54:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It seems Christians are defending two Gods. One one hand, you have a perfect being, so beyond our scope of understanding, who has completely different thinking and intelligence than us and who is so different from us that we couldn't comprehend him. On the other hand, you have a God we can completely understand, one who loves, gets angry, envious, and punishes people.

These two God's are mutually exclusive, yet Christians act like it is the same being lol

New Christians, it seems, think the two beings are the same being.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 7:09:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/31/2012 6:54:34 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
It seems Christians are defending two Gods. One one hand, you have a perfect being, so beyond our scope of understanding, who has completely different thinking and intelligence than us and who is so different from us that we couldn't comprehend him.

On the other hand, you have a God we can completely understand, one who loves, gets angry, envious, and punishes people.


I've never heard of a Christian (much less a theist of any stripe) who claims that God is completely understandable. Please quote some.

These two God's are mutually exclusive, yet Christians act like it is the same being lol

New Christians, it seems, think the two beings are the same being.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 7:12:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/31/2012 5:34:06 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/31/2012 4:25:40 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 7/31/2012 4:05:37 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Hitler: but now you see it just the same thing. I personally think Jews have to go eventually if we are to gather as one people and work together as a planet. Its my Dream well John Lennons first. lol IMAGINE.

The Fool: Firstly its a fail. He was a Christain and concidered one before the Holocaust he uses alot of the concepts in his speaches. And there is no other reason to not like the Jews in the first place. IN fact its the ONLY reason. IN Canada I couldn't tell the difference from a Jew unless they were wearing small hat. They are genetcally caucasion. There is only ONE REASON. AND WE ALL KNOW THAT REASON. IT is the ONLY REASON of why they would be hated in the first place. ALl the other stereotypes came about AFTER that special hate was inplaced. ANd we all know why!

Just replace a few words, and you got yourselves a reason to exterminate us.. lol nice.

The Fool: Exterminate!. Where do you see harm in anyways. in what I said. I think everybody wants The Good. The very same Good. We are more or less just ignorance on how to achieve it. I think evil comes out of Irrationality. To sin is to make a mistake. But that okay, we learn from your mistakes. I think People are GOOD in nature. WE are not merly selfish. We are the only MORAL animals and its because of our Rationality. I believe that there is teleology in life and in evolution. I have good arguments to support it. I think Life is a team. While the lifeless decays by entropy thus becoming chaotic. Life is its contradiction. We are getting more complicated, more organized and more advanced, the Human brain/mind is the best technology we have yet. I love you as I do anybody. I see you as confused, ignorance, you want the Good as we all do, but you have found it much confortable in a safty blanket of illusions.
The illusion we create for ourselve to save us from our fears; That there is not purpose to life but to die. So we make up an afterlife which we could never possibe know about. That there is no justice to be had in the world. So we create divine retribution.

We really want the GOOD that is why we make up concepts like after death define retribution. We create mythological places of happiness and helL. We shroud our selves in mythological illusion. To explain it all, but its really sign of a scared chi

Beliefs which you have put so much emotional investment into, that you are threatened by any Fool, who could possibly take away you blanky. But I want to take your blanky. Because only then will you grow up to be a man. I wish you good. But if you think God is the Good or the Moral, then you never could know what The MORAL moral and THE GOOD in itself is. You have to know these concepts first well before God is you are to know that God consist of it.
Defining God as these things only changes your 'idea' of a God. Faith could never be knowledge. Faith is the expectation that we know something. That subjective propencity, is why Nothing in Religion is objective. I think people have a hard time grasping this notion.

But I will tell why the sceptics purpose and objective morally are wrong. For they hide in a blanky too. Because they fear of being wrong. Instead to giving demonstrations. They assume from ignorance, that such things don't exist. They are self concsious. They are afraid to be the fool. But we could only learn but our mistakes. For it is by mistake that we learn what the nature of a mistake is. How we learn a method to getting knowledge.

One thing is we could never know what is not. All we can know is what IS.
So even notions of 'purpose' or 'God', are at menimal or 'Ideas' or fragments of Ideas. aka irrational/vague ideas.
but there our two options I present to you.

The one of the Sophist who takes the easy path in which you change the langauge instead of the truth behind it.
"Just replace a few words, and you got yourselves a reason to exterminate us.. lol nice'". but you will never know of truth, only the 'word' truth.

The second one is the path of the Philosopher, where you recognize the difference between words and the reality. This is a longer and harder path, you will face many insecuries and adversities on your journy, But you will learn of truth in itself.

But my advice is to you is its time to grow up and GET OUT FROM UNDERNEATH THAT BLANKY!!!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 9:25:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/31/2012 1:43:11 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
I'm just watching some New Christians debate against Atheists, but the atheists who focus on other views, such as Singer against D'Souza, but moreso Singer in general, I am starting to think: "Is D'Souza actually attacking what Singer thinks, or his he stating what some New Atheists think, and saying that is what Singer thinks?" It seems that D'Souza has misrepresented everything Singer believes, by pretending he is a New Atheist. Is the counterculture of New Christianity, in essence, being hypocritical in this case, and strawmanning and generalising atheism?

What do you mean by New Christianity? I've never heard this term before.
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 9:28:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Never mind. I see you answered that question already, though your answer wasn't very specific on how New Christians differ from "old Christians."

The way I understand New Atheists is that rather than try to debate Theism through logic and evidence, they take a stand that they don't "believe God doesn't exist," they merely "lack belief in God," and they're now characterized by ad hominem attacks (as per Richard Dawkins, who says atheists shouldn't argue against Christians academically but that they should shame and ridicule them into silence).
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 10:24:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/31/2012 7:09:13 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/31/2012 6:54:34 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
It seems Christians are defending two Gods. One one hand, you have a perfect being, so beyond our scope of understanding, who has completely different thinking and intelligence than us and who is so different from us that we couldn't comprehend him.

On the other hand, you have a God we can completely understand, one who loves, gets angry, envious, and punishes people.


I've never heard of a Christian (much less a theist of any stripe) who claims that God is completely understandable. Please quote some.

These two God's are mutually exclusive, yet Christians act like it is the same being lol

New Christians, it seems, think the two beings are the same being.

The Fool: Oh yeah. God is his own son and father. That is rational to you.
The point is that you can claim to know what exaclty you cant concieve. You can claim could created the universe. Because you don't know in what sense he created it. So why is it creation. If you take out all unconceivable concept. God no longer has special powers. That is why he is define well in one of the many many many forms. That he has the property inconscievablity. I say well is God is jealous that he needs something, that thing he is jelous of to satify his jelousy. But then someone will say. How you do you know a such a supreme being thinkS. And I would say EXACLTY
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 10:28:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/31/2012 9:28:01 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
Never mind. I see you answered that question already, though your answer wasn't very specific on how New Christians differ from "old Christians."

The way I understand New Atheists is that rather than try to debate Theism through logic and evidence, they take a stand that they don't "believe God doesn't exist," they merely "lack belief in God," and they're now characterized by ad hominem attacks (as per Richard Dawkins, who says atheists shouldn't argue against Christians academically but that they should shame and ridicule them into silence).

The Fool: DUDE you have been lied too. Lied. All arguments For God have already been logically refute from past enlightment philospohers. ALL OF THEM! A logical refutation means they are dead. until you change at least one premise its dead. They are lying to you about logic. Just little things like even pointing out Dawkins rather then just giving an argument highlight a problem in your understanding or logic.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL