Thomas Aquinas was dumb as dirt.

greatness...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3yKxvW9yNA&feature=sub

Faith is the belief in something without evidence, or even evidence to the contrary.

That's as good a definition as I've ever heard.

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so."

We were good boys, good Presbyterian boys, and loyal and all that; anyway, we were good Presbyterian boys when the weather was doubtful; when it was fair, we did wander a little from the fold.
- 67th birthday dinner, 11/28/1902

dg

hear the echo? Odd place to make a video.

For infinity to exist, all you need is a repeating universe template, that an object can move through without following the repetition of that universe.

I contend the supernatural exist. Although its exact form is outside of the normal so is part of faith.

However proof of God could be the question.

"why are you so upset or uptight about it?" If you think there are areas of religion that creates problems, then discuss those, why fixate on if God exists?

His belief in God does not hurt anyone, if he used that belief for something you disagree with, you should argue those points.

And with no offense to your beliefs, science is a belief system.

and it's testable and falsifiable, that sort of thing.

But if it makes you feel better to call it a belief system, go ahead. That belief system is the only reason you're able to post in the internet, after all.

But if it makes you feel better to live by it, go ahead.

and tag everything that you see that wouldn't be possible without science and the scientific method. Would you rather live with it, or without it?

And nobody lives their lives JUST by the scientific method, so your characterization is rather silly to begin with.

Because you (and by you, I mean believers, with a few exceptions) insist that your personal god does exist and want everyone else to accept that it does too.

"His belief in God does not hurt anyone, if he used that belief for something you disagree with, you should argue those points."

Really? Never hurt anyone, huh? Take some more time to rethink that one, okay?

"And with no offense to your beliefs, science is a belief system."

Absurd.

Instead of doing the same thing by saying they should not think that way.


It is not the belief in God, it would be the cannon or tenants of that belief that he should logically discuss. And it is not someones faith that hurts them, although the tenants can, it is someone not liking their faith, like he does with anger.

He is no different then a Muslim angry and yelling at a Christian, or a Christian angry and yelling at a Muslim.


Science is a belief system. I have explained that before. Even science says that. Any good scientist knows nothing is 100% proven, that is part of science, and if nothing in science is 100% then you have to have part faith in best guess even if repeatable by many observable experiments.

You are making no sense to me.

Then he should comment on them telling him he has to believe that way.

Instead of doing the same thing by saying they should not think that way.

Huh?

He is no different then a Muslim angry and yelling at a Christian, or a Christian angry and yelling at a Muslim

Again, huh? He is showing how the arguments made by Aquinas are absurd and illogical, nothing more.


Science is a belief system. I have explained that before. Even science says that.

Where does science say it is a belief system?

Any good scientist knows nothing is 100% proven, that is part of science, and if nothing in science is 100% then you have to have part faith in best guess even if repeatable by many observable experiments.

You are attempting to use a definition contrary to its intent, much like the "its only a theory" argument. Again, absurd.

It actually makes sense.

Tell me one bad effect that has happened from someone believing God exists, you can't.

You can only tell me effects from interpretations of inspiration or teachings, some good some bad.



The science being a belief is not absurd, you might not understand it the same way. I have posted on that topic before.

But then again, even though you say you not in the mood,you contradict yourself and have the discussion anyway. :wtf:

It actually makes sense.

No, it doesn't.

Tell me one bad effect that has happened from someone believing God exists, you can't.

You can only tell me effects from interpretations of inspiration or teachings, some good some bad.

Your attempt at playing semantic games is clever, but recognized. Aquinas had MORE that "a belief that god exists" as do pretty much ALL believers in a god. Your argument, if thats what you want ti call it, is again, absurd.

The science being a belief is not absurd, you might not understand it the same way. I have posted on that topic before.

It is absurd, and it is difficult to understand most of your posts, on any subject (even when I can figure out what the subject is).

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

for the greater glory and reward for/of God.

WTF?

You need EXAMPLES?

It happens every day.

That isn't about the BELIEF in God, just the misinterpretation of the dogma.

That horseshit semantic argument was set up earlier.

Or did people think that is what God was telling them. It is the interpretations.


My point is that going after someones faith is not what is needed nor productive, helping them have reason, and heart with faith by showing what ideas make sense and are better, not going against God, but against the flaws in man that cause the problems would be a better idea. Including flaws in a person themselves.


And in that example it looked a bit manufactured by people in many ways.

the effect of the bullet hitting people is a different story.

Because it is based on physical evidence, it is not a belief system.

Becaue Christian religious docrine insists that god can not be proven and must be accepted thorugh faith, that is a belief system.

OH, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,
Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God’s great Judgment Seat;
But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth,
When two strong men stand face to face, tho’ they come from the ends of the earth!

-- Rudyard Kippling

What kind of stupid shit is that? Science is NOT a belief. It's based on fact.

I suggest you take a junior high science class and relearn that.

I sorta feel dumber for having watched four minutes of that video.

video dude, here's a hint. You don't prove a statement just by adding the word "fucking" to it.

http://www.womenpriests.org/theology/aqui_inf.asp

I used to LOVE it when my catholic
friends and relatives wanted to talk
about what a peach he was.


Where to begin, he wrote SO much!

I answer that, It was necessary for woman to be made, as the Scripture says, as a "helper" to man; not, indeed, as a helpmate in other works, as some say, since man can be more efficiently helped by another man in other works; but as a helper in the work of generation . . . .
Among perfect animals the active power of generation belongs to the male sex, and the passive power to the female. And as among animals there is a vital operation nobler than generation, to which their life is principally directed; therefore the male sex is not found in continual union with the female in perfect animals, but only at the time of coition; so that we may consider that by this means the male and female are one, as in plants they are always united; although in some cases one of them preponderates, and in some the other.
But man is yet further ordered to a still nobler vital action, and that is intellectual operation. Therefore there was greater reason for the distinction of these two forces in man; so that the female should be produced separately from the male; although they are carnally united for generation. Therefore directly after the formation of woman, it was said: "And they shall be two in one flesh" (Gn. 2:24). Summa Theologica I, qu. 92, art. 1.


:puke: :puke:

religious beliefs. I would like to believe that Thomas' current opinions are rather different than those he put to paper a millennia ago.

create more men.

Asshole.

She was the prototype MIL from hell, IMO!

Did he come back from the dead and I missed it?

Thanks for pointing that out.


What are his "current" opinions? I have a feeling he would be a young-earth creationist if he was alive today. Is that what you mean when you say "I would like to believe that Thomas' current opinions are rather different than those he put to paper a millennia ago."

is a black hole for ego masturbation.

"Those motherfuckers are tasty!: :rofl: Also, I think I'm going to make some this afternoon.

over 102....We were brought up catholic, but soon left it for various other persuits.


mark

If you're going to make fun of someone's intellect, you might want to use spell check.

I've never seen anyone get so worked up about a thirteenth century saint.

How about people getting worked up about a 1st century mythical prophet? Or a 6th century one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_WRFJwGsbY

Sid

people who are arguing over a man whose been dust for centuries, LOL.

that use his theology and those built off of him? He's a pretty big thing in the RCC.

and forget about the whole silly being a Christian thing?

But he was far from dumb.

RS insensitive WSC

1. What do RS and WSC mean?
2. How is his stuff offensive? Certainly on the edge, but progressive.

I only watched the first argument on the video, the Unmoved Mover argument. That was enough.

Ignoring everything else, the Unmoved Mover argument originated with Aristotle. Yes, Aquinas used the argument, but about the only change he made to it was to call the Unmoved Mover, God. Maybe if your friend had bothered to finish high school, he would know that.

Few arguments that were made close to 2500 years ago would stand up today. That doesn't establish that the person who originally made the argument is an imbecile. History recognizes both Aristotle and Aquinas as being brilliant. Somehow I don't think this self-identified overweight high school dropout will make that cut.

“If it were not for some power that wanted the feminine sex to exist, the birth of a woman would be just another accident, such as that of other monsters <= a dog with two heads, a calf with five legs, etc.>”

“Nisi ergo esset aliqua virtus quae intenderet femineum sexum, generation feminae esset omnino a casu, sicut et aliorum monstrorum”. De Veritate 5, 9, d. 9.