Now that atheism is obsolete, who are the most important Christian philosophers of the 21st century?

>he doesn't know that the 'theologians' of the 19th century were all atheists that sold their countrymen to the nationalistic war machine

>Being a philosopher requires intellectual honesty.
No it doesn't. I don't know why it would.
>Therefore 'christian philosopher' is an oxymoron.
It's not because being a philosopher doesn't require intellectual honesty, it requires persons to write philosophy. Which can be very bad or very good or mediocre, consistent or inconsistent, dogmatic or axiomatic or whatever.
>The word you're looking for is 'theologian' and they all died out in the early 19th century.
No, a theologian does something different from a philosopher. There is philosophy in theology, but there is no necessity for theology in philosophy. Most contemporary Christian philosophy from what I've read does not explicitly argue about theological matters.

>only one enemy was left, two if you count god
Holy.... i want more....

Well, our differences of opinion regarding the definition of a philosopher aside, how can you call it 'christian philosophy' if it doesn't discuss theological matters?

You should check out MacIntyre. Feser is the young hope, but far from MacIntyre in brilliance.

Christopher Hitchens. When sober.

>Augustine
>Bacon
>Berkeley
>Burke
>Descartes
>Hare
>Husserl
>Kierkegaard
>Locke
>Rousseau

Not philosophers I guess.

Is there one christian thinker who can oppose Lacan with some valuable arguments? I need some fresh intellectual air.

It's written from a Christian perspective.
It has certain religious dogmas in the mind of the author and his worldview is shaped by it, but this in itself doesn't mean much. Christian philosophy differs within itself very much, from Augustine and Aquinas to Locke and Kierkegaard, they will have diametrically opposed philosophies and theologies.
MacIntyre for one is very much a Catholic, but his ethical system and arguments work with or without theological assumptions.
Husserl and Rousseau were Christians? It seems implausible from what I know of them (literature on the former and mostly legal stuff from the second).
I've never even heard of a Christian contemporary philosopher giving a single fuck about Lacan so I can't help you.

Little on the former*

They should though.

Plantinga

>Seconding Feser, the guy is amazing

In the eyes of an impressionable catholic adolescent, perhaps, but certainly not in the eyes of the more mature, philosophically informed.

>reality
>observable
Devil sends his regards, my spooky friend

>Being a philosopher requires intellectual honesty.
>No it doesn't. I don't know why it would.

L M A O
M
A
O

What he said is factually correct, and it's telling that there are no arguments against it.

Daily reminder that the sun can't stop in the sky.
Daily reminder that Jesus was supposed to come back within a generation.
Daily reminder that God never told any Jews about being a Triune deity.
Daily reminder that the earth doesn't predate the sun.
Daily reminder that Christians are so confused about their own beliefs they spent hundreds of years arguing about how they can make worshiping a human being not an obvious violation of their own dogma.
Daily reminder that Genesis is clearly fictional but every claim made by Christianity rests on it being 100% fact.

...

Stay spooked

You are the spooked one. You are the theist
>muh empiricism
Stay spooked

Foucault was an openly intellectually dishonest philosopher and a charlatan and everyone knew it. Yet, he's still a philosopher nonetheless.

REKD

TL;DR:
>muh will to truth

>Foucault was an openly intellectually dishonest philosopher and a charlatan and everyone knew it.
you're misreading what you're referencing tremendously because you don't know what you're talking about

Ok

Let's be real here, philosophy is pure navel gazing, and has added nothing of value to human discourse

U mean Human intercourse
But then neither do you

Guys instead of having a shitposting spree, why not talk about cool Christian contemporary philosophers?
Also mention why you like them.

>What is salvation history

Don't forget those book questions you have on The Catcher in the Rye due tomorrow, Harold.

plebble

FUCJ YOUK

best post here

I'm not that guy and it's you who needs to work on your reading comprehension. In the event that you are also the OP, then you also need to work on your composition.

For the OP proceeds from a false premise: that atheism is now obsolete. On the contrary, witness the increased profession of some flavor of irreligion or "no religion in particular" throughout the west, in line with the historical trend. Moreover, the language of the OP clearly invites argument on the matter, for if the OP had sincerely wanted to avoid attracting correct fedoras to his thread, and had sincerely only wanted to discuss contemporary Christian philosophers, then he would simply have rephrased his OP by reconstituting the second clause as the only clause in his sentence. But of course this is not what he (you) really wants, he wants to be shown that he is wrong. Hence the former clause.

That Islam, for example, threatens to destroy the west, and with it the western tradition of irreligion as we know it, is no disproof of the present relevance of atheism. Do you think that any of, say, Obama, Hillary or Trump are sincerely religious persons, at bottom, in the depths of their souls, if they even have any? Such is the relevance of this inner life, however execrable you may find the above characters.

The OP built the derailment of his own thread into that thread when he made his choice of first clause. In the future, he will remember either to keep an OP prompt simple, direct, and free of false rhetorical swipes in the event that he wants actual discussion of his chosen topic, or he will straight-up go looking for an argument.

The third possibility is that the OP is an advanced meta-troll who knows to mix loaded clauses with a pretense for serious discussion to guaranteed multiple replies and a generall awful thread. In which case since the OP has had a success with this thread, then he will use the same technique again later.

YOU LIVE IN SPOOKS

So there is no such thing as a 'philosopher'? Because none of them are intellectually honest.

WHAT THE FUCK IS HUMAN DISCORSE WITHOUT PHILOSOPHY???

>factually
Facts don't exist.

In what way is atheism obsolete?

>Daily reminder that the sun can't stop in the sky.
The immediate response would be that it was the earth that stood still, but that would take like 7 seconds of insight, I can see how you didn't put that together.
More likely, a duplicate source of light substituted the sun for a day, making it look like it stood in the sky, while not shrouding the rest of the planet in 24 hours of night.
>Daily reminder that Jesus was supposed to come back within a generation.
Within a generation of Jerusalem becoming a nation, which happened in the late 40's; that generation is still alive today.
>Daily reminder that God never told any Jews about being a Triune deity.
This is spoken from an underinformed knowledge of the concept of the Trinity.
>Daily reminder that the earth doesn't predate the sun.
Well there was an earth before this one. Same planet, same sun. It was destroyed with the same water that Genesis refers to as "without form and void and the Spirit of God hovered above it etc." The gaps between verses in Genesis are immeasurably vast.
>Daily reminder that Christians are so confused about their own beliefs they spent hundreds of years arguing about how they can make worshiping a human being not an obvious violation of their own dogma.
That was literally prophesied to happen to the religion by Jesus.
>Daily reminder that Genesis is clearly fictional but every claim made by Christianity rests on it being 100% fact.
reminder that you need to pull your pants back up because your lil knowledge isn't about to impress anyone.

For for an idea to be considered obsolete it must be false,for if it has truth is therefore relevant to the discussion. Atheism is the belief that no God exists. It is therefore true that in order to honestly consider atheism obsolete one must provide undeniable evidence that God does in fact exists.

where is your proof OP I get that the fedora wearing autists who can't shut the fuck up about it are annoying however this does not change the fact that there is no evidence of a supernatural creator.

>evidence
Evidence is a meme.

Omnipotence as a capacity means anything said to hold omnipotence mus exist.

why is trolling retarded atheists still this easy in 2016?

>evidence is a meme

fucking continentals

also there is a Omnipotent invisible gorilla in my garage prove it doesn't exist fagot

>prove
Why would I want to do that.
>fucking continentals
yeah how dare I reject your presumptions. I must be a GAY COMMIE KEK!

I see that you have an extensive fedora collection, my fellow gentle sir. Care to partake in a glass of Franzia over some black and milds? We can discuss mature philosophers for mature gentleman such as ourselves

Pope Benedict XVI

Striner was secretly black, and therefore, a spook. That's why we only have stick figure portraits of him and not proper ones.

I liked pic related's book The Experience of God, but man does he beat around the bush with his writing style.

Peter Rollins

now that facts are obsolete, who is the most strongest warrior of daydreams?

...

Is his new book good? And does he have some more political, less theological works you'd recommend?

REI

mundusmillennialis.com

Veeky Forums, Is there a good way to reconcile my long-term gay relationship with Christianity or should I give up on the whole religion thing?

sure, just have very liberal (not necessarily in the political sense) interpretations of everything related to christianity to the point where you just make christianity fit your worldview, not the other way around

most people do it already

You can give up your gay relationship.
Or you can take 3 quotes out of context and say to people that you are a Christian, when in fact you are living in going to hell tier sin.

which quotes would that be (not that guy)

Like the out of context stuff like 'don't judge'. It's impossible to be theologically consistent and excuse sodomy for a Christian.

>This entire thread

Aquinas argued for a nearly-deistic god, not a christian one.

No he didn't.
He went out of his way to establish a theistic one, but is easily misunderstood because you read him with the vocabulary of a naturalist (or didn't read him at all).

Gut Gott. Have you read his five ways in depth??? There's NOTHING there that validates or attempts to validate a christian god. Have you even read Aquinas?

>vocabulary of a naturalist

Aquinas noncognitivism is legendary.

>Have you read his five ways in depth???
Yes, of course. I'm assuming you too have read the metaphysics and philosophy of nature behind it?
>There's NOTHING there that validates or attempts to validate a christian god.
The Christian God? Yeah, he admitts it openly. But it argues for a theistic god clearly if you can read it properly.
>Have you even read Aquinas?
Have you? Alongside necessary commentary to make him understandable? Because half of the words he uses have different meaning for him than they do to us.
5 ways are also summaries of larger arguments found elsewhere.
>The Five Ways themselves are merely short statements of arguments that would already have
been well known to the readers of Aquinas’s day, and presented at greater length and with
greater precision elsewhere. For example, he gives two much more detailed versions of the
proof from motion, along with versions of the proofs from causality, the grades of
perfection, and finality, in the Summa contra Gentiles. The proof from motion, having
originated with Aristotle, is also naturally discussed at length in Aquinas’s commentaries
on Aristotle’s Physics and Metaphysics. The Commentary on the Sentences, On Being and
Essence, On Truth, and the Compendium of Theology each contain further statements of
some of the arguments. Some of them were also familiar from the works of Christian
thinkers like St. Augustine, St. John Damascene, and Albert the Great, Muslim thinkers like
Avicenna and Averroes, and the Jewish philosopher Moses Maimonides. That the being
whose existence Aquinas takes the Five Ways to have proved must have all the divine
attributes is something he devotes much of the rest of Part I of the Summa Theologiae (as
well as hundreds of pages of his other works) to proving. And of course the metaphysical
ideas apart from which the Five Ways cannot properly be understood (and which were
surveyed in the previous chapter) are developed throughout Aquinas’s works.

file:///C:/Users/Sir/Downloads/Aquinas%20A%20Beginne%20s%20Guide%20-%20Edward%20Feser.pdf
Good introductory work to Aquinas.
Alasdair MacIntyre in God, Philosophy, Universities and Fredrick Copleston in 2nd Volume of History of Philosphy provide great commentary on Aquinas in general and this topic in specific.

>file:///C:/Users/Sir/Downloads/Aquinas%20A%20Beginne%20s%20Guide%20-%20Edward%20Feser.pdf

libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=F5F8961CB6B49829A376D6E242B80555
Sorry ma nigga, this should do.

Christopher Hitchens' retard brother

>file:///C:/Users/Sir/Downloads/Aquinas%20A%20Beginne%20s%20Guide%20-%20Edward%20Feser.pdf
>file:///C:/Users/Sir/Downloads
>Users/Sir
>Sir

Godposting for shits and giggles is gay and old guys.

It's been gay as balls since usenet; get a scooby-doo.

It means cheese

Benedict XVI

>retard brother

he's literally twice the intellectual Christopher Hitchens ever was and his politics is right on point

youtube.com/watch?v=vAJPUR3jI-Y

I'll ask again, does he have any interesting mainly political writings?

Look at his encyclical letter Deus Caritas Est on the Vatican website. Though very theologically dense, it is still a very philosophical work that does touch on social justice in politics

All this assmad christfags giving you (you)s.

This cunt.

Did she even write?
And if she did was she a philosopher or even a theologian?
And of course she doesn't fit in the "21st century" parameter.

Christian phenomenology 101 translated to plain language
>we can't really know who killed Jimmy Hoffa
>therefore, let's arrest Joe Blow at Main Street 187 in Tadpole, Idaho

>The immediate response would be that it was the earth that stood still, but that would take like 7 seconds of insight, I can see how you didn't put that together.
>More likely, a duplicate source of light substituted the sun for a day, making it look like it stood in the sky, while not shrouding the rest of the planet in 24 hours of night.
And what blacked out the Sun? 1 Sun worth of light + 1 Sun worth of light = 2 Suns worth of light.

Her shitty theology was something like this:
P1: Jesus suffered.
P2: We should emulate Jesus.
C1: Therefore, we should suffer and spread suffering.

That's not how it works.
Light, and sound, doesn't increase in intensity by adding multiple sources, just volume.
Just because you strap 1,000 dim flashlights to each other doesn't mean it's 1,000 times brighter, you just have a gigantic dim light.

Of course the 2 sources of light thing was completely hypothetical, but yeah.

>Just because you strap 1,000 dim flashlights to each other doesn't mean it's 1,000 times brighter, you just have a gigantic dim light.

no he's not, you're a fag

Hitchens could be a bit of a pseud, even though on some subjects he was well-read. He got in trouble when he'd enter into debates where he knew little about the subject, and he'd get pretty thoroughly BTFO. I mean, of course he did, but he'd get into them anyway. He was a little arrogant.

None, obviously.

>believing that war on drugs is good
>not retarded
Pick one.

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2013/10/peter-hitchens-is-wrong-on-the-internet-there-really-is-a-war-on-drugs/

He's right you fool. Senses are based on logarithmic scales, nerd.

Bumping this dead thread just to emphasize how completely retarded this user is, holy shit.

Quality post