Recently we have had some interesting discussions between atheists and religious people on some of our lists. This has inspired me to write a series of lists on topics relating to both sides of the story. To start with, I am doing this list of 15 of the most brilliant quotes from Saint Thomas Aquinas. Thomas Aquinas was one of the greatest theological thinkers of the 13th century. His impact on Christianity was so immense that his writings are still at the core of Roman Catholic seminary education. He is the foremost classical proponent of natural theology, and the father of the Thomistic school of philosophy and theology.
Quotes 1 – 5
1. A man has free choice to the extent that he is rational.
2. All the efforts of the human mind cannot exhaust the essence of a single fly.
3. Because philosophy arises from awe, a philosopher is bound in his way to be a lover of myths and poetic fables. Poets and philosophers are alike in being big with wonder.
4. Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.
5. By nature all men are equal in liberty, but not in other endowments.
Quotes 6 – 10
6. Faith has to do with things that are not seen and hope with things that are not at hand.
7. How can we live in harmony? First we need to know we are all madly in love with the same God.
8. How is it they live in such harmony the billions of stars – when most men can barely go a minute without declaring war in their minds about someone they know.
9. It is requisite for the relaxation of the mind that we make use, from time to time, of playful deeds and jokes.
10. Love takes up where knowledge leaves off.
Quotes 11 – 15
11. That the saints may enjoy their beatitude and the grace of God more abundantly they are permitted to see the punishment of the damned in hell.
12. The things that we love tell us what we are.
13. Three things are necessary for the salvation of man: to know what he ought to believe; to know what he ought to desire; and to know what he ought to do.
14. To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.
15. Wonder is the desire for knowledge.
TO: Captain Jerry and Commodianus
Commodianus said: “Men bend religion to their desires: Not the other way around.”
Of course! The explanation is really quite simple. Religion comes from the minds of men, and not from anything supernatural. That is why it is called belief, but belief has nothing to do with reality. Belief is just what it claims to be, belief and nothing more. As for understanding our place in the cosmos, it does not matter what we believe, what matters is what is true and here religion always retreats into mumbo jumbo.
Belief is a sad joke played on the mind of man. As a kicker for the naive, they are informed with fear as a motivator. Believe or get burned at the stake, and in today’s world, believe or go to a very bad place for eternity. What bull! You are right, all mystics are liars, although they do not know this, they just keep passing the lie around anyway.
I always thought some folks never mature intellectually – never seem to take the next step – never want to see, never stop believing in the comfortable stories of childhood indoctrination. Kids trust their parents to tell them the truth, and mom and dad go along with the baloney because they were infected too. For me, it is all about growing up and realizing there ain’t no Santa, Easter Bunny, or God. There is great comfort in understanding the world without fear of going to hell. To think as I choose. To see the world without the ugly glasses of religious tyranny shading my mind.
We have just had eight years from a believer in the White House. War, stupidity, nonscientific decisions and just plain ignorance like most born agains. Oh let’s not get into that, the idiot is almost gone.
@Captain Jerry:
“why is one correct and all the others incorrect?”
Investigating with intellectual honesty the basic tenets of the major (or even if you like minor) religions will bear fruit in regards to this. The question is are you willing to overcome your conclusions enough to decide what information you need to acquire to make a fair conclusion. And I don’t mean this as an insult, but I’ve debated atheists for years, and it seems to me they have a habit of forming a conclusion based on what they think is “evidence”, when they really have nothing more than a superficial view on what it is they’ve even decided against. One obvious point here is that Dawkins has never read Aquinas, namely the Summa Theologica. This is obvious to anyone that has studied Dawkins and Aquinas (me).
The name you’re looking for is Sam Harris. I’m sure you will enjoy him. Again however, superficial knowledge, naivety and lack of education are blatantly apparent to the well versed in his case.
I’m sure a similar argument could be made that “many Christians have no idea about cosmology or biology”. That’s a true statement in many ways. However there are those like me, that have studied both sides of the coin and still remain on the side of reason and still remain on the side of God existing.
How about me? I live in Minnesota USA, a family man. Apologetic I have been doing for years now, and honestly it gets easier as time goes on.
I was casually religious, but then a friend of mine started getting into atheism. Even with a casual belief of God, his arguments lacked logic, and he inadvertently pushed me into being more and more solid in my reasoning as his lack of depth became more and more apparent through my research.
@Captain Jerry:
The crusaders were reacting to over four centuries of relentless Islamic Jihad, which had wiped out over 50% of all the Christians in the world and conquered over 60% of all the Christian lands on earth before the crusades even began.
The word “crusade” does not appear in the Bible, nor is it commanded. However, Jihad is the sixth pillar of Islam and the second greatest command of Muhammad. It is not only commended, but commanded in the Quran.
The crusades ended many centuries ago. However Islamic Jihad is carried out to this day.
I suggest reading more about the subject.
Commodianus:
I find the very idea of any mysticism mystifying. Are we laughing now?
Anyway… Superstition/religion makes wild and outrageous claims. A magic man in the sky that grants wishes if you ask in the right manner is just one claim. Amazing claims require amazing proof. How about any reliable, repeatable, provable data at all?
My mind has a choice, rationality, or superstition. It’s another way of my saying; data, or stories, phenomena, or wishful thinking, the material, or faith, the real, or religion, something that works, or something that does not work. The list is endless.
Now the word ‘all’ is a gigantic word and I understand it’s meaning before I write the following: All mysticism comes from the minds of men – stories and myth – lies. No matter how pretty or captivating they may be, without proof they are just stories. It’s referred to as hearsay in court and is non admissible for good reason.
Superstition has no proof of any of its many outrageous claims while science is the struggle to explain our universe with proof as its very basis. That’s not much of a contest for me. I vote for what works.
Stay warm up there my friend. I’m traveling. Right now I’m in Key West, Florida.
“The crusades ended many centuries ago.”
Bush once referred to his war on Iraq as a crusade. White men have always enjoyed killing Arab peoples. It continues to this day, with the blessing and support of peace(?) loving, religions.
TO EVERYONE:
“The eye which can appreciate the absolute beauty of a scientific truth
is far more rare than that which is attracted by a moral one.
Few detect the morality in the former,
or the science in the latter.”
Henry David T…….
Captain Jerry, greetings I hope you are enjoying Florida.
Christianity is not American. Bush does not represent Christianity, especially not in regard to the subject here which is Aquinas. Aquinas was Catholic. Bush is not Catholic. Most Christians are Catholic. Period. Politicians that are Catholic by and large fail in their politics to live up to Catholic moral standards (e.g. Kerry, Kennedy, Biden).
That said, Bush does not obey the Pope, and is not defending Catholicism or it’s followers.
As for your previous remarks, I would argue that it is quite easy to look at something someone else has already done the legwork on. Whether it be a “scientific fact” or a religious truth. The pride one has can be enjoyed much greater if one had the ability to come to the agreeing conclusion independently. That is where sound reasoning lies.
A Superficial understanding of either science or religion will prevent this. I possess neither.
I will admit that many people in religious circles do not have a scientific background. In contrast however, for example Alister McGrath (theist) and Richard Dawkins (atheist) have virtually an identical background.
Watching McGrath debate Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens should in my opinion illuminate the cloud of failed logic to one that is serious about intellectual honesty and prove as it were, “one does not have to be an idiot to be a theist” Which should already be obvious for anyone that’s read Aquinas. You need not suspend reason. Just suspend your own faith in regard to what has yet to show evidence. Additionally, learn the difference between truth and fact and who is presenting what and when and you shall be on your way.
Regards.
HAVE YOU NOTICED THAT THE COMMENTS BY ATHEISTS USUALLY LACK LOGICAL ORDER AND LOGICAL FORM, MEANING THERE ARE NEITHER TRUE PREMESIES NOR TRUE CONCLUSIONS, ONLY DOGMATIC STATEMENTS OF FAITH OR OPINION? BUT THEY ALWAYS CLAIM TO BE GEMS OF REASON. IT REMINDS ME OF THE RECENT ATHEIST CHRISTMAS DISPLAY FILLED WITH DOGMATIC DECREES EXTOLLING THE SUPREMACY OF THEIR “REASONS” WHILE NEVER DISPLAYING ANY. THERE ARE NO TRUE AND VALID REASONS IN SUPPORT OF ATHEISM, JUST BAD FALLACIES BY DECEIVING SOPHISTS MASQUERADING AS “REASON”. BELIEVE AND BE BAPTISED.
P. S. HOUSE WAS WRONG AS USUAL WHEN HE MISADVENTURES INTO THE REALM OF THE SACRED; BUT JUST SUBSTITUTE “ATHEISTS” IN PLACE OF “BELIEVERS” AND TRUTH WILL BE SERVED.
68. Jerry P. T. Weaver -
1. it is common knowledge that posting in all caps online is considered shouting and therefore extremely rude.
2. per our FAQ – posting in all caps is not allowed. so do not do so again or your comment will be considered spam and treated thusly.
3. it has been my experience, as an atheist that theists do tend to engage in rude behavior just such as what you’ve posted in all caps. which btw – in so doing negates whatever feeble message you were trying to impart.
4. also in the FAQ you will notice we do not encourage preaching here. this is an entertainment website not your personal pulpit. should you feel so inclined to preach, get your own website, fund it yourself and preach til you are blue in the face.
this site is for entertainment purposes only.
considering you did not bother to read the FAQ prior to posting, its doubtful you’re familiar w/ any aspect of this site..so let me clue you in..i’m an admin here so i do moniter comments w/ respect to the FAQ.
Lmao #68 Jerry P.T. Weaver. Stop throwing around your buzzwords and get the fact that religious beliefs must be based on faith… so where are your “true” and “valid” reasons for believing? Put down your Intro to Philosophy book and stop imposing your worthless views onto other people. If you were a true man of faith, it wouldn’t bother you so much. Get over it.
Per your shouting and misspelled quote; “HAVE YOU NOTICED THAT THE COMMENTS BY ATHEISTS USUALLY LACK LOGICAL ORDER AND LOGICAL FORM, MEANING THERE ARE NEITHER TRUE PREMESIES NOR TRUE CONCLUSIONS, ONLY DOGMATIC STATEMENTS OF FAITH OR OPINION?”
No. Actually, I have noticed the opposite. I keep asking for some clear, intellectually, factually, reasonable, scientific proof of the outrageous and insane claims of superstition/religion. You claim that atheists are not rational, or logical and yet ask me to believe in talking snakes and other similar nonsense. Please!
Dear Commodianus,
I apologize for taking so long to respond. I’ve been traveling, and now I’m back in my mountain home in Virginia. I hope this finds you well.
Per one small part of your post: “Whether it be a “scientific fact” or a religious truth.”
Oh dear. Truth is a slippery subject. For a scientific approach to truth, I can measure the temperature outside my window right now – 51.5F. Depending on the accuracy of the thermometer, the temperature scale, errors in reading the scale, etc. I can determine a reasonably “approximate” temperature. If there are errors in this data it could and should be criticized by others.
Through science, if one works at it hard enough, truth prevails. However, I can’t find one religious truth anywhere, anyplace, or anytime. Not one.
If the basis of a so called “truth” is religion/superstition, there is no truth, only belief, and we both know how insane belief can become. People can choose to believe anything without proof, like a world wide flood, ghosts, goblins and talking snakes. What we believe is not truth. What we measure, or prove, or understand comes closer.
Very best regards my friend and brother,
Captain Jerry
68. Jerry P. T. Weaver – Recent Atheist Christmas Display Filled with dogmatic decrees extolling the supremacy of their “REASONS” while never displaying any.
You are referring to the anti-religious sign housed in the Washington State Capitol, right? Remember a number of LV viewers are outside of the United States so clarification is needed. As far as that sign goes, they simply stated it was a celebration of Winter Solstice (a pagan celebration, but more importantly a valid date signifying the change in daylight vs. nighttime). Three sentences about their beliefs in no God is hardly worth the excitement unless your Christian faith is fragile enough to be felled by that.
The state capitol also housed a Christian Nativity scene without explaining the reasons for celebrating a birth that factually could not have happened in December. Particularly the birth of one fair haired and fair skinned in a location known for its dark wiry hair and dark/olive complexion. I see you haven’t complained about that.
And the fact that Christians were protesting the inclusion of this sign at the Hall as well as sneaking in at the middle of the night to steal the sign is a clear sign they were “extolling their supremacy” over supposedly inferior religions and nonreligions.
That sign was not forcing anyone to convert. It took up relatively little space. I saw nothing wrong with giving every idea an opportunity to express itself.
Does this lack logical order or logical form to you?
@Captain Jerry (Post 71)
You can rationally demand scientific proof for supernatural phenomena, in so much as you can demand supernatural proof for scientific phenomena.
Personally, I don’t use one to “prove” the other. No more than I would ask an auto mechanic to teach me biology.
Religion’s truth lies in the simple fact that it’s an effective system. The empirical benefits are debatable.
RE: Post 72
Truth exists beyond scientific fact. Examples:
Poetry, Enjoyable Music, art, Parable etc.
Scientific fact relates to a different aspect of each of these than the subjective “truth” we find.
As for science’s relation to religion, I find that often times mistakes are made by both sides (as I think I have stated). It’s essential not to confuse the roles of each.
Dear Commodianus,
Per your comment: “You can rationally demand scientific proof for supernatural phenomena, in so much as you can demand supernatural proof for scientific phenomena.”
There is no supernatural proof for anything, anywhere, or at any time in history.
One can and should insist on proof for the types of outrageous claims made in regard to religion/superstition. Likewise, one can and should insist on proof for scientific claims just as well.
Without proof, one can say anything whatsoever is true, as is frequently done by religious/superstitious minds. With religion, anything goes and the rules of logic do not even apply. Let’s talk about religious claims.
How about a big pink bunny that holds the universe together?
How about if you’re told the big pink bunny can violate the laws of physics, or grant personal wishes if you pray to him?
How about if you’re told that unless you believe in the big pink bunny you will get thrown in a brier patch and tortured forever when you die?
Let’s get to the point: What’s the difference in talking bunnies and talking snakes?
Superstition/religion is arrogant by nature. Science is supremely humble and searches for real, demonstrable, repeatable, truth. Religion/superstition does neither. Religion is the supreme error of the human mind. It acts like a virus infects a body, or a computer, or the human mind. Religion/superstition is the absence of truth. A religious mind is a mind closed to rationality.
RE: Captain Jerry #75
“There is no supernatural proof for anything, anywhere, or at any time in history.”
You seem to be missing the point. There is no scientific proof for anything supernatural, there is not supernatural proof for anything scientific. Why expect either of these to garnish what they will not?
If you wish to equate Jesus Christ with “big pink bunnies” then your making not only a logical mistake, but demonstrating ignorance in regarding history.
Thomas Aquinas, being Catholic would use the following term:
Fides et Ratio
Which means “Faith and Reason” — a concept not unfamiliar if not fundamental to science.
“How about if you’re told that unless you believe in the big pink bunny you will get thrown in a brier patch and tortured forever when you die?”
We can use logic and reason to determine the most likely truth in regard to this statement.
With Jesus Christ, we know he existed. It is not a matter of faith. We have documents outside of the Bible from historians of the time, as well as the preserved history of the Church from the Church fathers.
We know exactly how what we have today (as the Catholic Church – and it’s mutations/protestants) came to be.
All persons involved, from Christ to Benedict XVI are documented and independently verifiable.
Jesus to Peter, Peter to Linus, Linus to Anacletus, Anacletus to Clement I.
Just investigating the evidence surrounding the first century should indicate that blind faith without reason isn’t required.
Nobody doubts the Romans occupied Judea and is taken seriously.
We have plenty of extra-biblical historians mentioning Christ (and not just one disputed of two comments by Josephus).
Pliny the Younger
Suetonius
Publius (or Gaius) Cornelius Tacitus
Titus Flavius Josephus TWO ACCOUNTS – ONE disputed.
All mention Jesus existing.
So I do not see the similarity between Jesus and the “big pink bunny”. It is not because of “blind slavery to a mental infection” that I do so, and sir, quite honestly your assessment of humans throughout history being guilty of such a thing I find more arrogant than you can possibly claim religious people to be.
Furthermore, I do not think sir, that you can prove (empirically) that there is an intellectual advantage to being an Atheist.
Your quote: “You seem to be missing the point. There is no scientific proof for anything supernatural, there is not supernatural proof for anything scientific. Why expect either of these to garnish what they will not?”
You’re making my point. And to repeat my point – There is no proof for anything supernatural. Claims require proof. Where is the proof?
And, just because some guy named Jesus existed does not mean any god, gods, pixies, or godly pink bunnies exist.
One can believe anything without proof. Where’s the proof? Show me God! Why is he so sneaky? Why does he/she/it always hide?
I read that people belonging to organised religions tend to live longer. I’m in my sixties now but I am quite unable to accept religious stories: they’re often nice stories but simply ludicrous. What do I believe? I marvel at the majesty, enormity and complexity of our Universe. If there were a Creator, the only thing we can be sure is that he/she is a mathematician.
RE: 78. Captain Jerry
There is no empirical data that can convince all humans God exists. This is true.
Logic should govern the thoughts of those in the various fields of science, and also when studying religion.
Through logic, we can come to have a firm belief in our creator.
This is not the God of the Gaps, it is not the God of Behe.
In this, I would say that God does not hide. However, perhaps there is a certain criteria which I may not be able to articulate properly which does exclude some from being able to “see” God. This is nothing however that your own choices cannot overcome. Can I prove this claim? Contingent on your actions I would say yes. Without your cooperation, no, I cannot prove it to you personally.
Throughout history man has offered several proofs for God, some indeed were Mathematical (See Kurt Godel).
I will agree however, that a fundamentalist Biblical Literalist approach, or the flawed approaches of men like Micheal Behe, further alienate the critical thinking believers form the critical thinking skeptics.
This is yet again another advantage of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, which through there early separation (1056AD) and long history (still existing) — we can see quite easily the difference between churches founded by the apostles, and churches found by men.
Circa 1970s Born Againism – Circa 1990s “Non Denominationalism” both illuminate a huge contrast from the apostolic church.
Throughout history, although many differing points of view have emerged from both systems (Catholic and Orthodox) — The fundamental truths are maintained (sacraments for example).
The fundamentalist, Americanized, Protestantism, Science-Phobic religions of today are not what we should look to for “rational examples”.
The Bible contains a vast amount of different sorts of work. There is a difference between knowing a parable to contain truth, and needing to believe in talking snakes.
Again, you can produce your own proof. Base it on logic. I have been debating Atheists, agnostics and anti-Catholic/Orthodox folks for years, and while I still consider myself a novice, I posses the foundation in logic to have the ability to knock away fallacious arguments. When I knock away the fallacious arguments both for and against God from all sides, I have still through reason come to my faith — Fides et Ratio.
There are scientific proofs. This we know. However, there is no supernatural proof for anything because there is no supernatural. How can a leprechaun, or a pixie, or a ghost, or god that does not exist prove anything? It’s nonsensical.
Religion is derived from man. It has nothing to do with the real world except as it causes some people to kill, some people to wage war, and some people to go to church on Christmas.
As for the intellectual advantage to being an atheist, it is simple – Tis better to seek the truth, than be seduced by fable and myth.
79. BarneyH
I would agree that if there is a God he is a mathematician. I would argue vehemently that if there is a God, math is certainly one of the more logical ways to understand the nature of his work.
Personally, I think of God as the original Great Polymath.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymath
81. Bob Morris:
Sure. Allow me to rephrase. How would it be logical to expect science to prove something that is beyond the scope of science (supernatural)?
RE: 81 –
As for the intellectual advantage to being an atheist, it is simple – Tis better to seek the truth, than be seduced by fable and myth.
How is it that you do not see that this is not a scientific statement?
You have no actual proof to demonstrate that this is a factual claim. Only your opinion.
(or might I add, and perhaps more importantly – that what you are calling fable and myth is such)
Adam and Eve – Serpents that speak – An Earth centered universe – A world wide flood – Mystical lands paved with gold – Ghosts and demons – Mystical flying people – Magic horns that destroy cities – People spontaneously turning into sodium chloride (salt) and the biggest self falsified lie of all, life after death. If one reads the tenants, or foundations of just about any religion/superstition it always falls apart at the base, unless of course, you’re one of those folks that believes the sort of things in my list above. I’m sorry, but I can’t even start to believe in such obvious baloney. Supply some proof and change my mind… I’m not asking for much.
A few rare things in the Bible are actually historically correct, but it should be obvious many other stories are nothing more but wild exaggerations, fanciful delusions, stories for children and the naive.
We live in a material universe – a universe composed of matter, and an electromagnetic spectrum that gives rise to phenomena. It is an amazingly beautiful place with rich complexity. The simple, naive, primitive, parochial, religions provide no truthful answers. NONE! Mystical nonsense moves man in exactly the wrong direction.
I said “Tis better to seek the truth, than be seduced by fable and myth.”
And you replied “How is it that you do not see that this is not a scientific statement?”
Science seeks to find the truth, about ourselves, our planet, our place in the cosmos, and millions of other things. If one attempts to use mysticism to determine reality it will fail, as it always has. Try going to the moon with prayer instead of a Saturn 5. Mysticism fails at everything except screwing up peoples brains which then screws up everything else. Look what religion did to the middle east.
RE: 87. Bob Morris
“Science seeks to find the truth, about ourselves, our planet, our place in the cosmos, and millions of other things. ”
Science does not seek the whole of truth.
Science seeks the empirically discoverable truth.
Science can not tell me what my favorite song should be. That is also a form of truth.
Perhaps you think science can determine our favorite song, painting or poem. If this is the world you aspire to, I would really start thinking about it more.
Like many superstitious folks you do not understand the very purpose of science. Of course science seeks the whole truth. This is exactly the point of science. Often, this reality takes time to discover, but man’s ignorance does not deny science, nor is it a proof for any type of mysticism, or superstitious beliefs. You have made a quite common mistake concerning superstitious beliefs.
How about some proof for any of the crazy claims made by religion? Anybody can make up anything. Prove it and you have said something meaningful.
“Science does not seek the whole of truth.”
I’ll give you just one proof to deny your statement. The Super Conducting Super Collider at Cern. It seeks no less than the beginning of the universe and how matter and energy operate.
I do my very best to try to think like a scientist and I definitely seek the whole of truth. Most, if not all scientists I have ever known, or ever read of are in awe of the universe and want to know how it came to be, how it works and where it’s going – the whole of truth. I never find a religious person seeking the whole of truth, rather I often see them denying reality by attacking science.
Empirically discovered truths as you call them, or data and theory as I name them are science, and reality, or the truth if you wish. Stories are not truth. They are stories. Believing stories is belief, and not reality. It is something that happens in your head and not the real world. Belief is not simply wrong, it is exactly the wrong way to determine reality, like a mental sickness.
Science can’t tell you what your favorite song is, quite yet, but it’s close. It can also tell you exactly why one chord sounds better then another. It turns out that music is mathematical.
And lastly, I do not aspire to any world, because as a thinking human I seek the truth. I want to know why and how the universe works. And, because science cannot answer every question is hardly a proof for pixies, ghosts or a god. It is a motivator to discover a beautiful, rich and complex reality.
RE: 89
Religious systems have logical proof and mathematical proofs. As for your claim that I do not understand the purpose of science I would argue that it is you that are mistaken.
A majority of the atheist arguments against “God” existing are based in a lack of empirical scientific evidence, yet I am accused of misunderstanding the purpose of science?
RE: 90
I realize many people are in awe of the Cern Collider. However large it’s discoveries may be, I don’t think people like Kenneth R. Miller and I are worried about it. The reason is not some “God of the Gaps” which neither I nor Miller subscribe to. It is not the “God of explanation” that we seek to show the world.
As for science telling me “what my favorite song is” — that’s not what I said. Science can’t tell me what my favorite song SHOULD BE. Those are very different things.
I do not know of any mathematical proofs for the existence of god that are valid. Most are circular reasoning, and therefore invalid. False circular reasoning can “prove” the existence of anything, even magic pixies.
In addition, any proof of god or gods would be world wide news. Quite literally, it would be Earth shattering news. Where is it? Where are the proofs for gods, goblins, deamons, or any god? Considering the insane claims made by superstitious/religious thought, that’s not a lot to ask for…
Your statement “A majority of the atheist arguments against “God” existing are based in a lack of empirical scientific evidence, yet I am accused of misunderstanding the purpose of science?”
I have never heard of any atheist argument against gods, a god, pixies, ghosts, goblins, devils, demons, magic creatures, angels, talking snakes, Thor, Zeus, and so on…
The reason lies in the rules of logic and deductive reasoning; “No possible arguments exist to invalidate anything that does not exist.” This is known as a zero sum equation and thus invalid. In other words, nobody can prove that anything does not exist.
Atheists simply view the total and complete lack of proof, or utter lack of any acceptable evidence for supernatural entities as non existent. The evidence is as nonexistent as the supernatural itself. For your information, the term “supernatural” is a contradiction in terms. Everything in the universe is natural.
Your remark: “I realize many people are in awe of the Cern Collider.”
It’s not operational yet. There are no discoveries, just the potential of discoveries.
Your remark: “However large it’s discoveries may be, I don’t think people like Kenneth R. Miller and I are worried about it. The reason is not some “God of the Gaps” which neither I nor Miller subscribe to. It is not the “God of explanation” that we seek to show the world.”
Why would you concern yourself with stories and myth rather than the amazing beauty of an intricate reality? Stories are not reality, no matter how much one believes it.
Your remark “As for science telling me “what my favorite song is” — that’s not what I said. Science can’t tell me what my favorite song SHOULD BE. Those are very different things.”
I agree. Soooo… What is your favorite song anyway? LOL
RE: 92
Which Mathematical Proofs for God’s existence have you dismissed?
RE 93:
I have heard several arguments from Atheists against the existence of God. Several. I’ve been doing this for some years now. “The Problem of Evil” is one good example.
What I was saying in post 91 is that it is my opinion, in addition to what I have previously stated is, that at best, claiming “there is no scientific or other evidence” for God, or the “Christian supernatural” is a “Stramineus Homo” argument.
We’re subjectively concluding (very frequently) what sufficient evidence would be contrary to stated nature of said deity.
RE 94:
I’m aware that it is slated to go online in Summer. I do follow things. See this nice video about Cern:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/brian_cox_on_cern_s_supercollider.html
You said:
“Why would you concern yourself with stories and myth rather than the amazing beauty of an intricate reality? Stories are not reality, no matter how much one believes it.”
Stories are a method of revealing truth. Just as the Cern collider’s discoveries of Higgs particle was explained as an *****ogy. This method of communication to articulate points will never die out.
Further, there is no demonstrable proof that I cannot be a religious man, and a fantastic scientist at the same time. There is no empirical evidence that suggests atheists have an intellectual advantage.
In my case, I enjoy both Christianity and Science immensely.
RE 95:
Hard to Nail down. I love music and I am a musician (albeit a poor one).
I can be anywhere from Gregorian Chant to Psy-Trance (Astral Projection). From Mozart to Tupac, from AC/DC to Jane Siberry. From the Cure to Bun-b. Charles Mingus to BB King.
Quite eclectic. I don’t do country though.
“33. devilishgrin66 – February 14th, 2008 at 2:14 am
JFrater – im jewish, although hardly (i turned atheist almost immediately after being bar mitzvahed) but i thought that the jews didn’t believe in hell?
el dude – the church might not have directly killed as many people as those other institutions but they have consented to or authorized just as many.
Its not exactly great to look at it this way but the catholic church is also widely responsible for AIDs, through its stance on birth control.”
The vitriol of secular Jews never ceases to amaze me. Before you cry ‘racism’ or ‘anti semiticism’- I am a BLACK AFRICAN CATHOLIC, but am sick to death of secular Jews (not Orthodox Jews) spewing lies and misconceptions about the Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church has not killed NOWHERE near as much as godless atheistic ideologies like communism has- ever.
Here I must steal a rational persons previous input:
60 million Chinese butchered by Mao.
2 million Cambodians murdered by Pol Pot.
6 million Ukrainians slaughtered by Stalin.
Tens of millions of other Soviet citizens killed by Stalin’s Soviet Union.
Atheist Nations give us a fine example. Do they not?
One Million+ Tibetans killed by the Chinese;
Million-plus Afghans put to death by Brezhnev’s Soviet Union.
As for the HIV issue in Africa, as a BLACK AFRICAN, to hold the Catholic Church responsible for this is beyond ludicrous. In Eastern Africa, such as Uganda and the Philippines, the teaching of abstinence has resulted in a decrease in HIV contraction- whereas South Africa, which relies heavily on the lie which is ‘safe *****’ has seen an increase in HIV.
Try arguing with facts and not anti Catholic propaganda.
“37. bitter crank said
Is it possible that all the verbally abusive atheists that hit the blogs are actually former judgmental “judgmental Baptists? Bertrand Russell said that you can tell what kind of a Christian you WERE by the kind of atheist you ARE.”
Well said, Bittecrank. This has been my experience too.
“34. B8ovin – February 19th, 2008 at 2:41 am
I find it odd when people confuse political systems with philosophical/theological ways of thinking. Because philosophically the USSR was atheistic it follows that their political system was an atheistic government? Hardly. Hitler was a devout christian, and maintained the Third Reich was a christian movement.”
Hun, this lie has been refuted numerous times before. Hitler may have been raised Christian but he certainly was atheist when he committed his atrocities. Not to mention his persecution of the Christian Church. Nice try.
I find it hilarious that there are people here who have not heard of Thomas Aquinas, yet feel somehow superior to him because of the power of his faith. Aquinas was one of the greatest philosophers not born in Athens, and did more to elevate man from the darkness of ignorance and superstition than any man alive today. He was the first person to reconcile Aristotelian ethics, systemic logic, and metaphysics with the teachings of Christ; he single handedly liberated Christianity from the most oppressive maxims of oppression and regression. Read Summa Theologica–his masterwork and treatise on politics, ethics, theology, justice, and metaphysics–before you pronounce judgment about such a great philosopher.
@93 tsk, tsk, I can very well prove that things don’t exist. Like a square circle. Or an invisible pink unicorn. People use the word God to mean something that can’t be, such as an all-seeing, all-loving, all-powerful being.
Aquinas was an intelligent fellow operating within the realm of his indoctrination. However him and any other “great” religious thinkers do create grandious conceptual bodies of work within the context of their singular religious concepts. Therefore everything they say, as beautiful as it sounds, is only relevant to the context in which all has been developed. Hence the effort of many to extrapolate such thoughts outside the narrow scope they have been created is futile. Aquinas’ worldview was based on a set of religious axioms that can be easily dismissed if information from outside his scope of thinking is used. Nevertheless the human mind has the capacity to create appealing dictums with the elements available to it. Thus Aquinas’ must be read as a poet philosopher and appreciated in such context. The relevance of his sayings to reality is (should be) unimportant. Using anything he said to justify anything at all, it is just using beautifully formulated sentences against provable facts.
Cheers
RE: 101.
What information did Aquinas require to be freed from his indoctrination, that for example, I do not have (as a Catholic)?
For once, he was restricted to the ideas available in his historical and geographical space dominated by catholicism. [Btw, the comment does not mention any "freeing"]. Our reading of his writings must acknowledge the context. Ideas developed after his time are obviously not possible to be reflected in his thinking. However our access to information developed after his time should allow us to read and understand his writing in a more modern context that takes in account all that’s available to us now. However many people still read older texts without understanding (or even attempting to) their historical and geographical context, and taking them to face value; which is acceptable for intellectual entertainment endeavors such as poetry and possibly philosophy but not beyond.
RE: 103.
You said:
Aquinas’ worldview was based on a set of religious axioms that can be easily dismissed if information from outside his scope of thinking is used.
That’s what I posted #102 in regard to. It seems to imply that given “modern thinking” he would not have held his opinions. I don’t find any evidence for this claim (as a Catholic).
Because it is not reasonably possible to find any such evidence! He does not live today and looking for such evidence is futile (unless he might have been a time traveller). But people are shaped by their environment and thus we ought to take this in account, if we are about to fully use our cognitive capacity. How many people growing in a non-religious or non-catholic environment become catholics as adults? While examples can be found it is not a common occurrence. I did not meet any but statistically it must occur. The wish to use old texts to shape our life is understandable, from a psychological point of view; it gives one solace in the continuity of our thought. It is even more understandable for somebody that grew up in an environment where antique religious texts are given such credit. [ well if you believe a patchwork of texts written over thousands of years, it is easier to give even more credit to somewhat newer texts based on the same]
RE: 105
You said:
Because it is not reasonably possible to find any such evidence! He does not live today and looking for such evidence is futile (unless he might have been a time traveller).
=====================================
Which evidence is that? Aquinas never offered evidence for anything other than conceptual cohesion. Logic.
You said:
But people are shaped by their environment and thus we ought to take this in account, if we are about to fully use our cognitive capacity. How many people growing in a non-religious or non-catholic environment become catholics as adults?
===========================================
I am not shaped by my environment. Intellectually I am shaped by my ability to absorb data. How many become Catholic? Millions. I’m one of them. I became Catholic via reason, not environment.
You said:
While examples can be found it is not a common occurrence. I did not meet any but statistically it must occur.
You’re commuting a logical fallacy here known as “argumentum ad populam” (aka appeal to majority). Your point is fallacious.
You said:
The wish to use old texts to shape our life is understandable, from a psychological point of view; it gives one solace in the continuity of our thought.
=======================================================
I don’t just use texts. I’m Catholic. My Church has been around 2000 years and quite frankly knows more about humans than anything else on Earth. We’re not “sola scriptura”. fyi.
As for continuity of thought, I would ask for evidence of this. There are a very minimal set of things we all agree on completely which make us one. There’s quite a bit of dissent elsewhere.
You said:
It is even more understandable for somebody that grew up in an environment where antique religious texts are given such credit. [ well if you believe a patchwork of texts written over thousands of years, it is easier to give even more credit to somewhat newer texts based on the same]
====================================
You seem to be committing two fallacies at once here. The Genetic, as well as an appeal to Novelty.
I’d appreciate discussing any non fallacious points you have. My suggestion would be to touch up on your argumentation techniques. You seem to write well, now learn what a valid argument is, and you may be able to get your points across.
Religion is the biggest escapist fantasy.
face reality and reach out for the truth, just as you did with Santa Claus :p
Commodianus,
I have had a change of heart. See this for inspiration:
Jerry
RE 107:
You mean Nicholas, Bishop of Myra?
Will DO sir. WILL DO.
RE 108 – I have a video of the same dude on my youtube page:
Good for a laugh.
@Nietzsche (70): re : …religious beliefs must be based on faith.”
On the contrary I answer that this is only half true. There is a minority body of beliefs that is also able to be proven by human reason (ref. – 1st part of Aquinas’ Summa, the Catholic Encyclopedia, and the 1st part of the new Catechism of the Catholic Church). And foremost among these is whether the existence of God can be proven.
@Captain Jerry (71): re : “talking snakes and other nonsense. Please.”
On the contrary, I answer that you are very correct that a talking snake is completely outside of all natural phenomena – the precise requiremnet for a miracle. And provided there is an omnipotent God, then could not an omnipotent God perform such a miracle? It is not so much that a snake was empowered to speak as that Satan, that speaker of fallacies, was allowed by the power of God to assume the form of a snake. And yes, I have even seen a miracle. Yes, really. Would you be interested in financing a polygraph of my miracle (or know anyone who would) plus $1,000 to my charity if I pass it? Let’s get it on.
@Nietzsche (70): re : “so where are your ‘true’ and ‘valid’ reasons for believing?”
On the contrary, I answer that there is such a thing as misplaced faith, and right reason (true and valid) should stear us away from misplaced faith. And you sir have obviously placed all your faith in science and in college professors who like to trash all religions. But not all religions are alike. And just how is your science to study an object that is invisible (like air), inaudible (like a moving proton), odorless (like clean air), tasteless (like water), and untouchable (like a cubit of empty space). Now you can cop out and just say there are no such objects. But where is your scientific proof of that. You’d be just assuming, and you know what that makes you. No, your science can’t touch that question – Does God exist. You have no scientific tools with which to measure non-matter. You may want to define non-matter into non-existence, but I didn’t think science worked that way. I love science, but I know its limitations. Next time : a short proof for the existence of non-matter
@Commodianus (106): Excellent work Commodianus. You keep them on point. They also use the fallacies of ad hominem, strawman, and equivocation. Too bad these who worship their little god of science know almost nothing of first logic. But we can smell a fallacy 12,500 miles away. Great nose for the truth.
@jptw (112): For all you scientists who insist that non-matter cannot exist, I bring you :
Proof That Non-matter Exists
Let matter be defined as everything that has ever been : matter, energy, time, dimensions, parallel universes, and quantum particles – everything we find in our sensory experience.
Primary working hypothesis : that non-matter does not exist.
From this hypothesis, we must conclude that there exists a huge logical class of everything that was ever matter. And we know from both experience and logic that it is utterly impossible for a thing to cause its own coming into existence; for then it would exist before it existed – an absurd contradiction. And no argument is sound that contradicts its own assertions. Therefore, since this entire matterial class cannot have been caused from within its own class, then it can only be caused from outside that class. But there is nothing material that is outside this class; and outside this class of all matter there is only non-matter; and yet, we saw that the cause must come from outside this universal class. Then, the cause of all matter can only be non-matter; and to cause is to exist. Hence, even when we assume that non-matter does not exist, we must judge against that hypothesis. Hypothesis disproved and non-matter really dose exist.
@Bob Morris (92): re : Mathematical Proofs would be earth shaking news.
Or rather they should be but for the polarized nature of all such things having to do with God’s existence. Atheists are pre-disposed against it, and have considerable power in all media forms. No matter how valid they are, I fully expect to remain just another obscure theologian by virtue of media bias. And so, why be in any hurry to release them to an unworthy public? Those who need to know them have received them. Let them release them if they wish. Your bias has deprived you of them.
Circular reasoning my foot. Aquinas starts with sense perceived causality and ends with a first cause. I don’t see the circle. Show me more.
And fyi JPTW and Jerry P. T. Weaver are one and the same.
@jptw (115): One of these listverse writers above criticized Christians for having our scriptures.
I answer that every science has *****ogus writings of discoveries they deemed important. The scientists take their notes, submit them to a scientific journal, and perhaps even to many text books. And these date way back even to Archimedes and Aristotle. These are the scientist’s scriptures. And if those who love God are in turn blessed with miracles and revelations, should they not also esteem these as important enough to pass on to a respectful posterity? We shall always be extremely proud of all our true and holy scriptures. You can even meet the Lord there.
#7 is great. I love that in every age the hearts of men are drawn to the same God.
Hey, what about these very eloquent quotes from Aquinas?
"As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active power of the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine *****; while the production of a woman comes from defect in the active power."
and
"If forgers and malefactors are put to death by the secular power, there is much more reason for excommunicating and even putting to death one convicted of heresy."
You have to admire someone who can rationalize how women are so defective and also supports the death penalty for non-believers. Saint? Indeed.
"6. Faith has to do with things that are not seen and hope with things that are not at hand."
-
To me this sound like "I can't see some things and other's i can't understand. And I'm not going to try it either.
"13. Three things are necessary for the salvation of man: to know what he ought to believe; to know what he ought to desire; and to know what he ought to do."
-
I like how one can see this as "Believe in evidence, desire knowledge and become educated"
"14. To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible."
-
This show a lot of the mind of a strong believer and the misconception of the one who doesn't believe in my opinion.
"15. Wonder is the desire for knowledge."
This speaks so much against religion it's pretty funny actually
—-
I'm an Atheist and I think all religion is wrong and i have a special resentment for Catholicism.
But in all sincerity i liked the mild manner of stating his case through these quotes. They were elegant, not always rational. But open for interpretation and not so condemning of others.
It's a shame that the seeming friendliness and his openness displayed in these few quotes, wasn't the Catholicism that killed and tortured so many during it's existence.
It was a nice surprise to see some thoughts out of a very religious man's point of view that wasn't sour with ignorance and prejudice.
there is a flux,nothing is static and non of this imperfection create no change to the realite of truth