A few important questions to ponder

[ThaG]

That wasn't the only time you did it, and when people asked you to stop doing it do you know what you replied with? In the instance you did reference, you could have just posted a link to the tree of life or told someone to google. Question, how many people do you think actually took the time to read it? Do you think it was more of a hinderance to the thread or something that helped it? Think about the complaints before you answer that.



You're like the guy who found a rope and now he thinks he's a cowboy. You've just found out about Thomas Aquinas like two days ago and now you're some expert on God knows what.

I think it should not be necessary to say that I am much better educated in the history of science and philosophy (not that Aquinas has anything positive to contribute to the former, but the two weren't separate at his time) than you can imagine.

Those are funny questions, and I can go downstairs, pull open some books and give you even more absurd questions.

exactly

Some from the 13th century, some at least 13 centuries prior to that. Also, I can post instances of 20th century white science/med students asking if black people grew tails at midnight.

There is a big fundamental difference between this question (as absurd as it is) and the question "Do angels defecate". One is testable and falsifiable while the other one isn't. Which means that the former can be answered while the latter is pointless speculation over something for the existence of which there is zero reason to believe in.

And there is also difference between pseudoscience, closely linked to dogma, superstition and ignorance, and real science, which you conveniently ignore.

What purpose will it serve? However, this will show you don't know what you are talking about:

Without looking at GOOGLE, or any other reference material, can you explain the political climate of 13th century Rome and the other philosphical movements that were going on at that time? Can you give us a brief compare and contrast scenario or a mini snyopsis that would explain how his (Thomas Aquinas) works did or didn't influence the east or western branches of Catholicism?

Thanks in advance, buddy.

EDIT: Times up. If Bablyon is set to fall in one hour, surely one hour was enough for you to do what it is you do...

I have a lot more things to do than schooling people on the internet, so your "Time's up" doesn't mean shit

 

[ThaG]

seeing things like this makes it easy for me to believe we evolved, as human beings, over time. this is what people of religion discuss and or believe in? Can someone explain to me how any of this is relevant to reality? i see people of religion do the most scanless things, then justify there actions by asking for forgiveness. this is a serious question? i'm not knocking you ThaG. i'm trying to understand the thought process for people that believe strongly in religion and the after life.

It is not relevant to reality, that was the whole point of the thread.

 

[ThaG]

Actually, they aren't. The questions you pose, like the thread on heaven and hell, hold certain presuppositions, which is fine. But this is not the same for the "Inductive Proof of the Afterlife" thread. You don't have to subscribe to a religious world view in order to consider the soundness of that argument. You simply have to analyze the premises and see what problems they might have or why they might not warrant the conclusion. You don't have to believe in God or souls or angels or demons or anything like that.

The "Inductive proof of the Afterlife" argument falls apart for the same reason (and I will not even bother to go into refuting the argument itself, although it is also logically flawed) that those questions are absurd - it is based on speculations (heavily dependent on the meaning of words), without a shred of factual evidence. And that's not a way to understand the world around us. That's why I brought up the angels on a pin and scholasticism, to illustrate how intellectually bankrupt such activity is, because it is indistinguishable from it.

 

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Thank god we made it to page 3!

 

[HERESY]

I think it should not be necessary to say that I am much better educated in the history of science and philosophy (not that Aquinas has anything positive to contribute to the former, but the two weren't separate at his time) than you can imagine.

Doubt it. Based on your past comments relating to philosophy, in particular, certain branches of it and how they relate to science, and coupled with the "exclusive" ideaology/mentality you often express, I'd say no.

exactly

So, what exactly is your point here? That because questions are considered absurd by certain groups of people (or status quo) that they are without merit? Shouldn't you be thankful for such madness? Afterall, if no one challanged the suggestion of the Earth being flat, or the geocentrism perspective, where would we be?

There is a big fundamental difference between this question (as absurd as it is) and the question "Do angels defecate". One is testable and falsifiable while the other one isn't. Which means that the former can be answered while the latter is pointless speculation over something for the existence of which there is zero reason to believe in.

So what if one is testable and falsifiable while the other one isn't? As it stands right now, science does NOT have all the answers to our universe nor has it explained everything in our universe. As far as someone having zero reason to believe in something, who are you to say someone has zero right to believe in something? You are too attached to your emotions and view of the world to let people be and do as they wish. THAT, my friend, is pointless. They are not impeding your progress as a human being so why bother? However, in regards to what you say is falsifiable and what isn't, again, people in the 20th century, a century where we have experienced vast technological and scientific growth, thought African Americans grew tails at midnight. However, even when it has been proven that no such thing occurs, people still promote the belief. Can you tell me why this is so?

And there is also difference between pseudoscience, closely linked to dogma, superstition and ignorance, and real science, which you conveniently ignore.

In what instance have I ignored "real science?"

I have a lot more things to do than schooling people on the internet, so your "Time's up" doesn't mean shit

You aren't "schooling" anyone which is EXACTLY my point. However, you say you don't have time to school anyone yet you get your panties in a bunch when people don't listen to you? LMAO!

 

[HERESY]

can any one shrink this back to normal?

"Buy a bigger screen" - 02-21-2009, 11:52 PM - ThaG

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

The "Inductive proof of the Afterlife" argument falls apart for the same reason (and I will not even bother to go into refuting the argument itself, although it is also logically flawed) that those questions are absurd - it is based on speculations (heavily dependent on the meaning of words), without a shred of factual evidence. And that's not a way to understand the world around us. That's why I brought up the angels on a pin and scholasticism, to illustrate how intellectually bankrupt such activity is, because it is indistinguishable from it.

You think it is logically flawed. I suspect that it is too. Still, the argument isn't anything like the questions you posed for the reasons I already gave. Angels on a pin presupposes the existence of angels. There is nothing being presupposed with that "afterlife" argument.

Your problem seems to be with a priori arguments. But arguments are arguments. If the premises are true and they warrant the conclusion, then the argument is sound. If you can pinpoint what is wrong with the argument, that's great. In that case, please contribute to the thread with your thoughts. If, on the other hand, you think the argument is a waste of time, then leave it alone.

 

[marty50]

smells like teen fail

 

[Ethereal]

The questions asked in here are... dumb.

ThaG is assuming that with spirituality/religion, one must also believe in angels, demons, ghosts etc (first and foremost, fallacy). No one in here has seen an Angel, just like no scientist in here has seen the big ball of mass that exploded into trillions of fragments. And what if someone has seen an angel and answered all of your questions, are you going to say "oh"; or laugh, which would in turn crumble your position on how serious you take this thread. Certainly you can not refute what someone has seen which would leave no room for debate. This thread had absolutely no direction other than poking at those with any type of religious belief.

This thread fails, indeed.

 

[ThaG]

The questions asked in here are... dumb.

ThaG is assuming that with spirituality/religion, one must also believe in angels, demons, ghosts etc (first and foremost, fallacy). No one in here has seen an Angel, just like no scientist in here has seen the big ball of mass that exploded into trillions of fragments. And what if someone has seen an angel and answered all of your questions, are you going to say "oh"; or laugh, which would in turn crumble your position on how serious you take this thread. Certainly you can not refute what someone has seen which would leave no room for debate. This thread had absolutely no direction other than poking at those with any type of religious belief.

This thread fails, indeed.

I don't know what big ball of mass you are referring to, but what you need to understand is the difference between the "spiritual" way of looking at the world and the methodological naturalism of science. One of them is a way of making a total fool of yourself, the other isn't

 

[FreedomLost]

. One of them is a way of making a total fool of yourself, the other isn't

Would you prefer to know if you were making a total fool of yourself?

 

[ThaG]

Would you prefer to know if you were making a total fool of yourself?

Absolutely yes, otherwise, if you nobody points out to you that you're mistaken, you will never fix the mistake. That's why the New ("Militant" as the "haters" call it) Atheism is the right approach to dealing with religion - if we don't laugh at the faithful, they will never know how laughable what they believe in really is

 

[FreedomLost]

Atheism is the right approach to dealing with religion

That sounds kind of vague. To be clear, you categorize a person believing in God, using the word religion to mean that?

 

[ThaG]

That sounds kind of vague. To be clear, you categorize a person believing in God, using the word religion to mean that?

Stop quote mining, please

I said "New Atheism" not "Atheism", the meaning of the first phrase is quite different

 

[FreedomLost]

My intention is not to be disrespectful

I just prefer not to assume

 

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Absolutely yes, otherwise, if you nobody points out to you that you're mistaken, you will never fix the mistake. That's why the New ("Militant" as the "haters" call it) Atheism is the right approach to dealing with religion - if we don't laugh at the faithful, they will never know how laughable what they believe in really is

Just because someone thinks you are mistaken, doesn't mean you are mistaken.

 

[ThaG]

Just because someone thinks you are mistaken, doesn't mean you are mistaken.

That's irrelevant to the argument I was advancing. Of course it's up to you to decide whether you are or you are not mistaken, the point was that you are unlikely to do so without external information.

And it is self-evident that the religious are mistaken

 

[Mr. Nice Guy]

That's irrelevant to the argument I was advancing. Of course it's up to you to decide whether you are or you are not mistaken, the point was that you are unlikely to do so without external information.

And it is self-evident that the religious are mistaken

LOL

Its very relevant to the argument you are advancing as well as the argument others are advancing about you.

 

[Fucky McFuckerson]

And it is self-evident that the religious are mistaken

Even though i agree with your stance, this statement makes no sense. Can you elaborate please?

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

I don't know what big ball of mass you are referring to, but what you need to understand is the difference between the "spiritual" way of looking at the world and the methodological naturalism of science. One of them is a way of making a total fool of yourself, the other isn't

You have not presented the "spiritual" way of looking at the world anywhere in this thread. Even if the subjects of your questions are part of a spiritual world view, the questions themselves and their possible answers don't explain that world view any better. It would be like someone asking what a black hole tastes like, implying by this question that modern science is foolish.

You have no idea if there is a methodology to the spiritual way of looking at things. Obviously, your idea is that "spiritual" means some sort of whimsical belief. Actually, the spiritual way of looking at things begins with understanding the living entity as a fundamental and irreducible part of existence rather than some consciousness that emerges from material arrangement.