Top 15 Quotes of Thomas Aquinas

Okay – thanks for the suggestions guys – I think the next one will be fun.

To one who has faith, no explanation is heard. To one without faith, an explanation is necessary.
This is more like it.

I love this quotes except #11 which makes me wonder, who permitted the saint to see the punishment of the damned in hell? Unless he personally talk to God himself…then..besides, it sounds a bit sadistic to me.

Reg: Aquinas was a Catholic theologian and philosopher – the Catholic Church (along with the Jews and the Orthodox) believes in hell – it would make sense that Aquinas would talk about it. Also – they don’t believe it makes God angry or spiteful – they believe it makes him just – true justice is when the good are rewarded and the bad punished.

Reg,
If you think that depicts a spiteful angry God you should stay away from the Old Testament.

Most of these quotes wouldn’t look out of place on one of those tacky motivational posters.

15. Wonder is the desire for knowledge.

Eh, no it’s not, curiosity is the desire for knowledge. I’ve often heard religious people complaining that knowing the details of something makes its less special, the “miracle” of child birth for just one example.

Here’s the path that theologins take,
1) Get brought up to believe in X religion.
2) Spent rest of life looking for justification for belief in X.

I mean, can any Christian on this board honestly say that if they were born into a Jewish family (or Muslim,Buddhist etc,etc) they wouldn’t spend their life happily believing in Judaism?

If you were born in Europe 3000 years ago, right now you’d be running around naked howling at the winter moon with the rest of them.

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. There is no church or religion of atheism. It is a naturalistic philosophical view, that proposes humanistic and natural motives for things like “morality”. It does not follow that a lack of belief in an invisible designer or creator leads precisely to inhumanity or immorality. The fact that some governments that happened to not believe in the Christian god, or any god committed atrocities is not evidence that they did so because of that lack of belief. That is logically erroneous. Many of the same people who committed these atrocities were meat eaters. Would you then posit that meat eating is makes one immoral? Or would you have the record of atrocities committed in the name of various gods expunged? Read the eighth quote above to see the cause of these horrific deeds. Man’s inhumanity to man, regardless the philosophy of the criminal.

#14 is a great example of how religions (with the help of pompous theologians like Aquinas) have developed increasingly better ways to totally immunize themselves with *criticism* – notice that #14, if consistent, ought to apply to *every* belief one takes only on faith. It’s the most ridiculous I’ve heard: trivially true, in one sense, ans trivially false, in another. So stupid.

devilishgrin66: Orthodox Jews believe in Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory – just as Catholics do.

Thomas Aquinas pwns.

captai jerry is right all mystics are liars

Beautiful quotes. I don’t even know who this guy is, but very deep. I like the one about the stars living in harmony, when humans can’t.

It does not matter what one believes…
The only thing that matters is phenomena – the material – the real.
All mysticism comes from the minds of men – stories and myth – lies.
All rationalism comes from attempting to understand the material universe.
One has a choice which to believe, stories or science. One leads to the Dark Ages and the other leads to progress.

“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary…”
This really says it all, and simply means nothing is required for one to be crazy.
If one listens to mystics, absolutely anything can be taken seriously from pink elephants to pixies to gods. Faith is another way of admitting that you’re nuts but still want to be taken seriously. Faith is the willingness to believe the untrue and unprovable. Faith is the ability to remove logic and rationality from your philosophy. Faith is a liability in our lives, while science, logic and rationality are assets.

@Captain Jerry

Science can tell you what is, not what should be.

The casual discarding of the culmination of human thought, on the science of thought itself, which is to say Philosophy, is not logical.

Ask an artist what role scientific discovery played in their paintings or sculptures, or a poet his poems. The answers will be met first with a perplexing look, and at most a comment on pigments, brushes or chisels.

That unexplainable aspect, that humanity is what man has pondered since his ability to do so became apparent.

I don’t need to know biologically why I am feeling happy, sad, or excited, although I am aware of peptides, I do not need to approach with suspicion, my own humanity. I for one will allow myself to be HUMAN.

The world you envision is sterile, and horrific. This is why you will never prevail.

To Commodianus:
Per your quote; “The world you envision is sterile, and horrific. This is why you will never prevail.”

The world I envision is beautiful, larger, and far more complex than human myths.
Truth prevails.
Reality prevails.
Mysticism fails.
Try rationality – unlike mysticism, it actually works…

Since I attend a Catholic university named after St. Thomas Aquinas (University of St. Thomas, Houston) I think I should stand up for the man. For all those who enjoy Catholic bashing, and religion bashing in general, I beg of you to not accuse in ignorance. Check out the facts http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ is a good site as is newadvent and wikipedia.

dangorironhide: Catholics have a very strong stance on justice. I am sorry you do not agree with it. People do make bad judgment calls. The Church may not have always made the best decisions, but we have asked forgiveness of groups we persecuted and ask that we are not judged for our transgressions just as we try not to judge others.

Reg123456: God showed St. Therese of Avila souls falling into hell like leaves falling off a tree in autumn to show the reality of hell and that people actually can go to hell which in turn should motivate us to turn away from sin and into the light. He is not a spiteful God, just the opposite, He cares for us more than anything.

devilishgrin66: The Church’s stance on birth control is Natural Family Planning. Which can be abused in the same way that the pill and other birth control’s are used. Afterall, only abstinence is 100% effective against all STDs and pregnancy 100% of the time.

Captain Jerry: Please go read the lists of the Middle Ages. Please.

Peace be with you all and God Bless you.

@Captain Jerry:

I’m not going to get into a statistics war here, but suffice it to say that LACK of religion could be argued to have killed as many and more.

Guns don’t kill. People do.

As a Catholic, Aquinas believed in faith and reason. I doubt you could understand his works and come to a different conclusion. I furthermore doubt you could read his works and find justification for violence. But that’s because I’m operating on the assumption you are sane.

Men bend religion to their desires: Not the other way around.

Captain Jerry:

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.

Again friend, your statements make me wonder if your knowledge when it comes to religion are anything but superficial. I see hints of Harris and Dawkins when you type. Both of which are complete ignoramuses when it comes to theological study. This is not to say you are one, but if those are your teachers I suggest you may have a big problem.

For your edification, I was raised Catholic and went to religious schools on and off until college and grad school. There was virtually no point in my life when I ‘believed.’ I do not mean to insult anyone, and although I keep it to myself I find the term belief somewhat repulsive. People can believe in anything as proven by the diversity and stark differences of the religions of the world.
As for the current god de jour in whatever religion one examines, why is one correct and all the others incorrect? One thing common to all religious/superstitious thought is that all the other religions are wrong, especially non-believers. Arrogance is common in most forms of superstition/religion. My gods are the right gods and your gods are the wrong gods, and so on…
In any event, have a nice day my friend.
PS: I live in the mountains of Virginia and Key West. How about you? I’m a retired airline pilot. 62

@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.

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.

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…….

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.

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.

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

@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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

“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.

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 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.

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 analogy. 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. ;)

“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.

@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.

RE: 101.

What information did Aquinas require to be freed from his indoctrination, that for example, I do not have (as a Catholic)?

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).

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.

Commodianus,
I have had a change of heart. See this for inspiration:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6waXPTSrGiA

Jerry

@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.

@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

@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.

@jptw (115): One of these listverse writers above criticized Christians for having our scriptures.
I answer that every science has analogus 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.

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 sex; 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.

there is a flux,nothing is static and non of this imperfection create no change to the realite of truth

Thanks for sharing. I definitely would have addes that one to the list if i’d known about it. I’ll add it to the post now. :-)

Boy! St Thomas Aquinas truly was a bore….I think I’d rather any of the Popes on the ’10 Worst Popes’ list. At least they were fun.

Excellent – I’m a preacher and find great material for my sermons from these quotes (including the ones from atheists).