PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
bullshit....... that's what is missing in Western civilization......it exhibits hatred, violence and greed........
Atheist versus former atheist debate
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Don't expect Satan worshipers/MAGAts to understand. Most aren't very bright.
Agreed Western values are based upon the tenets of Christianity.....but it wasn't all by friendly persuasion. Lots of Christians have killed Christians over the years, along with followers of other religions.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
No shit, Ms. Hume.IDawkins
ThatOwlWoman
Leftist Vermin
Yes. I would not wish the death my daughter went through on anyone. Ironically, she lived in an assisted suicide state.
ThatOwlWoman
Leftist Vermin
Classic projection.
Unless, of course, you are talking about the Trump Cult. Then you are 100% right.
NiftyNiblick
1960s Chick Magnet
It's a difficult subject to apply to somebody else's personal circumstances, though.
If comment is appropriate at all is uncertain.
I just opine without filter on things that frustrate me.
It's really hard to imagine what you went through,
and impossible to accept that you had to go through it.
Don't expect Satan worshipers/MAGAts to understand. Most aren't very bright.
Agreed Western values are based upon the tenets of Christianity.....but it wasn't all by friendly persuasion. Lots of Christians have killed Christians over the years, along with followers of other religions.
One of the misfortunes of history is that we couldn't burn Hitler and Himmler at the stake.
I am reading a book about the Middle Ages. Up until the late Middle Ages, Church doctrine was to deny the reality of witches and dismiss the concept as nonsense. Then the Late Middle Ages and the Early Modern period became a period of social instability. The were severe famines during this period, religious wars, social upheaval, and a kind of persecuting society took hold - elderly unmarried women became a target, or anyone who seemed like a drain or burden to society. It didn't help that the Protestant Reformation had emptied the convents, and the former nuns constituted a significant population of unmarried and even elderly women which society may have looked upon as a drain on resources, unable to support themselves, maybe even eccentric. That's the kind of people that were frequently and falsely accused of witchcraft, mainly just to get them out of the way.
Your hatred of Western civilization is noted.
I specifically said that there is nearly universal consensus on the ethos of the New Testament as an aspirational goal, even if most people fall far short. In the same way students in a college class all aspire to get an A, but the vast majority will receive Bs, Cs, Ds, and Fs.
The consensus on a Judeo-Christian ethos is so widespread and entrenched that even a prominent atheist like Trump has to pretend to be a good Samaritan, a charitable person, a person concerned with the less fortunate. That is exactly why he cynically set up a fake charity, tossed paper towels in Puerto Rico like he was shooting basketball hoops, and frantically tried to distance himself from Project 25.
There's a reason Jimmy Carter is universally admired as a decent human being, even by conservatives, while Trump is universally acknowledged as an immoral sleazebag, even by MAGA posters.
Jimmy Carter lived by the ethos of the New Testament.
He is the high priest of Atheism, and if you want to get the atheist perspective from a YouTube debate, you're either going to get Dawkins, or Hitchens (who died a decade ago and is no longer debating), or one of the other high priests of the New Atheism.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Burning Nazis at the stake would have been apropos.One of the misfortunes of history is that we couldn't burn Hitler and Himmler at the stake.
I am reading a book about the Middle Ages. Up until the late Middle Ages, Church doctrine was to deny the reality of witches and dismiss the concept as nonsense. Then the Late Middle Ages and the Early Modern period became a period of social instability. The were severe famines during this period, religious wars, social upheaval, and a kind of persecuting society took hold - elderly unmarried women became a target, or anyone who seemed like a drain or burden to society. It didn't help that the Protestant Reformation had emptied the convents, and the former nuns constituted a significant population of unmarried and even elderly women which society may have looked upon as a drain on resources, unable to support themselves, maybe even eccentric. That's the kind of people that were frequently and falsely accused of witchcraft, mainly just to get them out of the way.
Unsurprising that Team Trump didn't invent the hate against "childless cat ladies". Interesting point about ex-nuns. Note that witches often have cats.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Agreed. They were two of the Four Horsemen of New Atheism AKA militant atheism. Something most college dropouts wouldn't know. LOL
Between 2004 and 2007, four authors – Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens – published books critical of religion and promoting atheism.
The New Atheists are authors of early twenty-first century books promoting atheism. These authors include Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens. The “New Atheist” label for these critics of religion and religious belief emerged out of journalistic commentary on the contents and impacts of their books. A standard observation is that New Atheist authors exhibit an unusually high level of confidence in their views. Reviewers have noted that these authors tend to be motivated by a sense of moral concern and even outrage about the effects of religious beliefs on the global scene. It is difficult to identify anything philosophically unprecedented in their positions and arguments, but the New Atheists have provoked considerable controversy with their body of work....
...Clearly, the range of philosophical issues raised by the New Atheists’ claims and arguments is broad. As might be expected, attention has been focused on their epistemological views, their metaphysical assumptions, and their axiological positions. Their presuppositions should also prompt more discussion in the fields of philosophical theology, philosophy of science, philosophical hermeneutics, the relation between science and religion, and historiography. Conversations about the New Atheists’ stances and rationales have also taken place in the form of debates between Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens, and Dennett and defenders of religious belief and religion such as Dinesh D’Souza, who has published his own defense of Christianity in response to the New Atheists’ arguments....
...Criticisms have been raised about a number of the New Atheists claims mentioned above. With respect to epistemology, critics point out that the New Atheist assumption that religious faith is irrational is at odds with a long philosophical history in the West that often characterizes faith as rational....Finally, as regards ethics, critics argue that a problem with the New Atheists biological answer to the philosophical question concerning the ontological ground of the universal moral standard is that it could only explain what causes moral behavior; it can’t also account for what makes moral principles true. And critics contend that the New Atheists’ answer to the question, “Why be moral?” could only show that belief in God is not needed to motivate people to be moral; it doesn’t explain what does (or should) motivate atheists to be moral.
And then there is also the high priestess of the New Atheism, Aayan Hirsi Ali, who subsequently converted to Christianity in 2022, and the video I posted shows her explaining her conversion.Agreed. They were two of the Four Horsemen of New Atheism AKA militant atheism. Something most college dropouts wouldn't know. LOL
Between 2004 and 2007, four authors – Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens – published books critical of religion and promoting atheism.
The New Atheists are authors of early twenty-first century books promoting atheism. These authors include Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens. The “New Atheist” label for these critics of religion and religious belief emerged out of journalistic commentary on the contents and impacts of their books. A standard observation is that New Atheist authors exhibit an unusually high level of confidence in their views. Reviewers have noted that these authors tend to be motivated by a sense of moral concern and even outrage about the effects of religious beliefs on the global scene. It is difficult to identify anything philosophically unprecedented in their positions and arguments, but the New Atheists have provoked considerable controversy with their body of work....
...Clearly, the range of philosophical issues raised by the New Atheists’ claims and arguments is broad. As might be expected, attention has been focused on their epistemological views, their metaphysical assumptions, and their axiological positions. Their presuppositions should also prompt more discussion in the fields of philosophical theology, philosophy of science, philosophical hermeneutics, the relation between science and religion, and historiography. Conversations about the New Atheists’ stances and rationales have also taken place in the form of debates between Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens, and Dennett and defenders of religious belief and religion such as Dinesh D’Souza, who has published his own defense of Christianity in response to the New Atheists’ arguments....
...Criticisms have been raised about a number of the New Atheists claims mentioned above. With respect to epistemology, critics point out that the New Atheist assumption that religious faith is irrational is at odds with a long philosophical history in the West that often characterizes faith as rational....Finally, as regards ethics, critics argue that a problem with the New Atheists biological answer to the philosophical question concerning the ontological ground of the universal moral standard is that it could only explain what causes moral behavior; it can’t also account for what makes moral principles true. And critics contend that the New Atheists’ answer to the question, “Why be moral?” could only show that belief in God is not needed to motivate people to be moral; it doesn’t explain what does (or should) motivate atheists to be moral.
Wait a minute! Trump atheist??? He's the Republican Evangicals Orange Messiah!
But Christianity sweeped through Europe! Then brought to America!
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
you prove yourself wrong in your own thread......you criticize Trump then turn around and lie about him and Project 25......you attribute charity to Western civilization but for the lib'ruls their concept of 'charity' is to refrain from prosecuting shop lifters and arguing about which party uses FEMA the most......and to cap it off you belong to a party that supports the killing of unborn children.....it may be that once upon a time Western civilization was based upon the ethos of the New Testament......at the present it is based upon contempt for it......
The reason people, even conservatives, universally respect Jimmy Carter as a decent human is because he spent his life aspiring to the ethos of the New Testament.
The reason everyone, including conservatives, acknowledges your tangerine messiah is an amoral sleazebag is because he is an appalling insult to the ethos of the New Testament.
If you need me to teach you the basic cultural history of Western civilization, you need to start paying me tuition.
I guess. I lost interest in both of them decades ago.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
fuck Jimmy Carter...he was the worst president we've ever had till you put Biden in office......and fuck your opinion of Western civilization....don't come back until you stop supporting human sacrifice..,...
Didn't say anything about Carter's job performance, it was about his decency as a human -- but thanks for tacitly agreeing that Jimmy Carter is universally admired for aspiring to the values of the New testament, while your tangerine messiah is universally acknowledged as an amoral sleazebag